Higher Education and the Public Good

1. Higher Education and the Public Good Virginia’s Experience with University Restructuring SHEEO Professional Development Conference August 15, 2007

2. Goal of higher education restructuring legislation To provide public colleges and universities with more operational and administrative autonomy in exchange for a renewed commitment to their public missions.

3. Summary of legislation • Operational autonomy for all institutions • Commitment to “state ask” • Performance measures and financial incentives • Opportunity for greater institutional autonomy, including “management agreement”

4. History and context • General fund budget cuts • Tuition controls • Heightened political environment • Lack of effective coordination of higher education system • Some experience with decentralized authority

5. The case for change Institutional concerns + Need for reform + Fortuitous alignment Restructuring

6. Institutional concerns • Lack of predictability in funding, inability to plan • Inability to use “market strength” to meet institutional goals • Perception of undue administrative burdens

7. Need for reform • Global economic change and increased competition • Profound changes in population and economy • Regional and socio-economic disparities in educational achievement • Scarcity of resources • Redefinition of accountability – results, not inputs

8. Fortuitous alignment • Businessman governor • Legislative support • Stronger boards, including reemerging SCHEV • Institutional leadership and desire

9. Restructuring legislation • Outlines a public agenda • Provides institutions with more administrative and financial autonomy in exchange for a commitment to the public agenda (the “contract”) • Establishes an integrated six-year planning process • Ties financial incentives to institutional performance • Establishes process by which institutions can gain greater autonomy over time (three levels) • http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+ful+CHAP0945

10. The public agenda – “state ask” • Student access, including underrepresented populations • Affordable education, regardless of family income • Broad range of academic programs • High academic standards • Student retention and progress toward a degree • Uniform articulation agreements between two-year and four-year institutions • Economic development • Externally funded research • K-12 education and student achievement • Six-Year Plans • Financial and administrative standards • Campus Safety

11. Operational autonomy • Dispose of surplus property locally • Contract with local building officials for building code review • Acquire or convey easements • Enter into operating lease for academic uses • Make information technology purchases without prior approval of state CIO • Designate administrative and professional faculty locally • Certify SWAM vendors and authorize sole-source procurements locally • No change in tuition policy

12. What’s off the table • Retirement – college and university classified employees remain in the state retirement system (faculty still have options) • Health insurance – all employees remain in state health plan • Workers compensation – all employees remain eligible for state program

13. Mechanics • Board commitment to goals and transfer of authority for operational functions • Submission of six-year plans • Development of performance measures and respective institutional benchmarks • Assessment and certification of progress toward state goals and identification of gaps

14. Six-year plans • Enrollment • Enrollment targets negotiated between the state and institution • Based on statewide enrollment demand estimates • Academic • Institutional plans to expand and improve instructional programs and student services • Financial • Resources needed to meet enrollment targets and academic plans • Derived from state appropriations, tuition revenue, and other institutional sources • Gives policy makers glimpse of anticipated tuition increases given enrollment demands and academic priorities

15. Management agreements • Highest level of operational autonomy • Limited to institutions with demonstrated operational competence and high credit rating • With freedom comes greater responsibility for state goals (economic development, working with public schools, articulation and transfer, student financial aid) • Cannot be done in isolation – must be done in concert with other institutions and with state goals • http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB1502ER

16. Going forward • Importance of coordinating function • Ensure that the new reporting requirements are not more onerous than the administrative functions from which institutions have been freed • Periodic review by policy leaders of state goals and performance gaps • Involvement of business community in supporting state goals and institutional performance

17. Final thought Ask not what the state can do for colleges and universities, but what colleges and universities can do for the state

19. Mechanics • Board commitment to goals and transfer of authority for operational functions • Submission of six-year plans • Development of performance measures and respective institutional benchmarks • Assessment and certification of progress toward state goals and identification of gaps

20. Implementation • Spring 2005 – Restructuring Act signed into law • August 2005 – BOVs formally commit to state goals • September 2005 – SCHEV proposes Institutional Performance Standards (IPS) • October 2005 – First Six-Year Plans Submitted • Spring 2006 – GA adopts IPS • November 2006 – SCHEV and institutions set targets for each IPS • May 2007 – SCHEV completes first certification • May 2007 – SCHEV approves statewide Strategic Plan

21. Interrelated Elements of Restructuring Act

22. Six-Year Plans • Institutional Narrative • Academic Plan • Financial Plan – two scenarios of additional General Fund support • No additional GF • Full GF based on guidelines • Enrollment Projections

23. Interrelated Elements of Restructuring Act

24. Statewide Goals • Education related • Student access, including underrepresented populations • Affordable education, regardless of family income • Broad range of academic programs • High academic standards • Student retention and progress toward a degree • Uniform articulation agreements between two-year and four-year institutions • Economic development • Externally funded research • K-12 education and student achievement • Campus Safety • Financial and administrative standards

25. IPS – Examples Education related (11 goals - 19 performance standards) • Institution establishes mutually acceptable annual targets for need-based borrowing that reflect institutional commitment to limit the average borrowing of in-state students with established financial need, and the percentage of those students who borrow, to a level that maintains or increases access while not compromising affordability. • Institution maintains acceptable progress towards an agreed upon target for the total number and percentage of graduates in high-need areas, as identified by the State Council of Higher Education. • Institution maintains or improves the average annual retention and progression rates of degree-seeking undergraduate students. • Institution increases the number of undergraduate programs or schools for which it has established a uniform articulation agreement by program or school for associate degree graduates transferring from all colleges of the Virginia Community College System and Richard Bland College consistent with a target agreed to by the institution, the Virginia Community College System, and the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia.

26. IPS – Examples Financial/Administrative (1 goal - 11 performance standards) • An unqualified opinion from the APA • No significant audit deficiencies • Substantial compliance with all financial reporting standards • Substantial attainment of accounts receivable standards • Substantial attainment of accounts payable standards • Institution complies with a debt management policy approved by its governing board • Achieve the classified staff turnover rate goal established by the institution • Substantially comply with the annual approved SWAM plan • Make no less than 75% of dollar purchases through eVA • Complete capital projects and major IT projects (with an individual cost of over $1,000,000) within the original budget and schedules.

27. Interrelated Elements of Restructuring Act

28. Statewide Strategic Plan - Goals Section I: ACCESS • Enhance Access Through P-16 Curricular Alignment • Enhance Access Through Improved Coordination of Information • Enhance Affordability Through Financial Aid Advocacy • Enhance Affordability Through Education and Investment Incentives Section II: ALIGNMENT • Improve College Readiness Through Strengthened P-16 Cooperation and Communication • Strengthen P-16 Coordination Through Expanded Data Collection and Analysis • Support State Workforce Needs Through Strengthened Participation in Post-Secondary Education • Conduct a Comprehensive Economic Impact Study of Higher Education • Improve Alignment Between Higher Education and the Commonwealth’s Workforce Needs • Strengthen Academic Program Quality and Accountability Through Assessment Section III: INVESTMENT • Enhance Research Through Investment in Targeted Consortia • Enhance Research Through Investment in Infrastructure

29. What Does an Institution Get with Certification? • Interest on the tuition and fees and other nongeneral fund E&G revenues deposited into the State Treasury • Any unexpended appropriations at the close of the fiscal year, which shall be reappropriated and allotted for expenditure in the immediately following fiscal year • A pro rata amount of the rebate due to the Commonwealth on credit card purchases of $5,000 or less made during the fiscal year • A rebate of any transaction fees for sole source procurements for using a vendor who is not registered with "eVA"

30. Levels of operational authority Areas: CO, IT, HR, Procurement • Level 3 – Management Agreement covering all areas (UVA, VT, CWM) • Skip Level 2 and seek Level 3 authority • Seek Level 2 authority in one or more areas, but not all • Would just as well not participate

31. Next Steps • Strategic Plan gives direction to development of Six-Year Plans • Work with institutions to develop measures for new goals • Institutions submit Six-Year Plans – October 1, 2007 • SCHEV reviews Six-Year Plans • 2008-09 certification May 2008

32. What will Constitute “Success”? • How the six-year plans are utilized by the institutions, the governor, and the General Assembly • How strenuously the performance indicators and benchmarks are set and enforced • How SCHEV’s recommendations are weighed, utilized, and implemented • Achievement of cost savings through less bureaucracy and/or better ability to plan • Establishment of multi-year business plans for public institutions • Creation of tuition-and-fee predictability for students and parents • Demonstration of additional agility in areas of increased autonomy, e.g., human resources, capital outlay, procurement • Development of acceptable balance between institutional autonomy and accountability • Demonstration of measurable success on performance indicators and benchmarks related to state goals

33. Discussion