Where have all the dollars gone? Fall Symposium - September 23, 2009

1. Where have all the dollars gone? Fall Symposium - September 23, 2009

2. Report from the Long Term Institutional Fiscal Strategies Committee (LTIFS) Committee Membership Marvin Kaiser, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences(Council of Academic Deans) CHAIR Jackie Balzer, Vice Provost for Students(Office of Academic Affairs) Alan CabellyProfessor, School of Business Administration(Educational Policy Committee Representative) Doug Crow, Adjunct Professor, School of Business Administration(AFT representative) Hannah Fisher, ASPSU President(Undergraduate Student Representative), Sukhwant Jhaj, Director of University Studies(Faculty Senate Budget Committee), Michael McCarthy, Graduate Student(Graduate Student Representative), Marc Niesenfeld, Science Support Center(SEIU Representative), Steve Reder, Professor, Linguistics(Academic Department Chair), Kevin Reynolds, Professor, Chemistry(Academic Department Chair), Melody Rose Associate Professor,(Political Science Representative), Jonathan Uto, Educational Equity, Programs and Services(AAUP representative, Academic Professionals), Dee Wendler,Associate Vice President, Finance and Administration(Finance and Administration), Jennifer Williamson, Assistant Vice President, University Communications(University Relations), Mark Wubbold, Special Assistant to the Vice President , (Finance and Administration), Angela Wykoff, (Alumni representative)

3. LTIFS Consultants and Staff: • David Burgess, Institutional Research Analyst, Institutional Research & Planning Academic Affairs • Michael Fung, Budget Director, Office of Finance Administration • Cathy LaTourette, Human Resources Director, Office of Finance Administration • Mark Wubbold, Special Assistant to the Vice President, Office of Finance Administration • Nancy Goldman, Staff to the Committee

4. Committee Charge • Consider - organizational or structural issues that impact our efficiency and/or effectiveness. • Consider - operational approaches that could lead to more efficient and effective use of institutional resources. • Identify -alternatives for revenue enhancement that provide a more robust and financially sustainable base of funding • Consider - University-wide approaches, in addition to incremental reductions within the academic and administrative units, which could be used in dealing with the budget deficits for the 2009-11 biennium. • Suggest - approaches and criteria to be used in academic and administrative program consolidation or reorganization.

5. FinancesCommittee gathered and reviewed numerous internal and external reports. Independent and comparative analyses of PSU funding • Source: The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. www.deltacostproject.org

6. Revenue per student FTE- Oregon is almost at the bottom of 50 states Minnesota $21,426 (44%) Average $14,058 (51%) Tuition State Support Source: The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. www.deltacostproject.org Oregon $10,891 (74%26%)

7. PSU revenue ($8,398) per student FTE is even worse. Lower than U of O and OSU, and almost all of our peer institutions In Thousands Data taken from The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. www.deltacostproject.org

8. Total dollars per FTE student at PSU have decreased ($764) and the State contribution continues to decline Source: The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. www.deltacostproject.org

9. Total dollars per student FTE at U of O are higher ($11024), and have increased ($877).State support per FTE student has decreased and is less than that of PSU. Source: The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. www.deltacostproject.org

10. Nationwide Observations • Shift from public funding to tuition and fees. • Students have an increasing financial responsibility for their education (market-based approaches to delivering education). • These shifts in the funding of higher education have been compounded by rapid growth, especially in institutions that are chronically under-funded. Source: The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. www.deltacostproject.org

11. PSU Observations and Predictions • Mirrors nationwide trends but worse (total revenue per student FTE decreased) • Student demand for matriculation will continue to grow • State funded portion for higher education, on a per student basis, will not increase. • Market competition for students will continue to increase, both from our OUS peers and others • The city and the region will look increasingly to Portland State to support its economic, social and cultural development.

12. The Search for Solutions Expenditures Efficiencies Optimal Resources Alignment Save money Enhanced or alternate revenue streams

13. Clustered Recommendations • Curricular efficiency and effectiveness as a fiscal strategy • Enrollment management as a fiscal strategy • Research as a fiscal strategy • Administrative organization and operation as a fiscal strategy • Partnerships as a fiscal strategy • Athletics

14. Fiscal realities-Is it time to rethink who we are, what we do, and where we want to go? Continued growth in student enrollment (relationship to quality, reputation) Alternate Models

15. Research University($80-100 million in research) Sustainability Engagement Excellence Urban Environment

16. “As we become more dependent on student tuition and other external revenue streams, we will be forced to operate under a market model that will make access--an under-funded artifact of our historic mission -- more difficult to reconcile with our drive toward excellence -- excellence that will help us differentiate ourselves from our peers and better serve our multiple constituents.”LTIFS report

17. Fiscal realities-Is it time to rethink who we are, what we do, and where we want to go? Continued growth in student enrollment (relationship to quality, reputation) Alternate Models and realities

18. Clustered Recommendations Curricular efficiency and effectiveness as a fiscal strategy Enrollment management as a fiscal strategy Research as a fiscal strategy Administrative organization and operation as a fiscal strategy Partnerships as a fiscal strategy Athletics

19. Curricular efficiency and effectiveness as a fiscal strategy On-line and off campus component of the curriculum Faculty mix Course scheduling, enrollments, and classroom utilization “Streamlining” the curriculum – courses offered, timing of offerings, etc. Academic calendar (12 month vs. 9 month operations) Accelerated degree programs

20. Enrollment management as a fiscal strategy Tuition policy Enrollment mix Retention and recruitment

21. Research as a fiscal strategy Growing external research funding Creating adequate research support

22. Administrative organization and operation as a fiscal strategy Information technology Moving some activities to not for profit corporation Academic organization/structure Energy conservation Benefits/compensation Fiscal planning

23. Partnerships as a fiscal strategy Administrative efficiencies Revenue enhancement Curricular efficiencies Recruitment and retention Growing externally funded research

24. Athletics Discussion of LTIFS recommendations regarding Athletics will be addressed during the NCAA recertification process.

25. LTIFS Recommendation: • Curricular Efficiency and Effectiveness as Fiscal Strategy

26. The Student Story

27. Curricular Delivery Systems

28. Faculty Life

29. Back to Fiscal Strategies

30. Discussion Questions: Which action item from the 11 LTIFS recommendations does your table see as top priority? What are the academic implications of this action item? What are the unintended consequences of this action item?