Mississippi University for Women

1
Mississippi University for Women

• Presentation on State Trends and the Budget
• Fall 2008

2
State Trends that Impact Our Budget

• IHL Board, Legislators, Constituents, and
  Accrediting Agencies are calling for greater
• Access
• Accountability
• Affordability
• Proof of Value Added through Student Success

3
Not Unique to Mississippi

• National trends (some are even international
  trends!)
• Public Universities are seen as the key to state
  economic health
• Shift from industrial/manufacturing economy to
  information and creativity based economy.
• Use of public money public scrutiny
• Global economy
• More competition for students

4
Accountability Measures

• Growth as measured through enrollment
• Access as measured through of students who are
  transfers, adult learners, minority students.
• Success as measured by retention, graduation
  rate, student performance on standardized and
  assessment measures

5
Mississippi State Institutions of Higher Learning

• Funding Formula
• Adopted November, 2003
• Rebalancing
• Phased in Beginning FY 2009

6
Appropriations per FTE excluding Ayers1995 to
2008
7
Past Equity Adjustments

• Actions by Board of Trustees to address the
  perceived funding inequities began in FY 2006.
• FY 2006 - 457,440 (MVSU)
• FY 2007 - 1,000,000 (MVSU UM)
• FY 2008 - 1,000,000 (UM)

8
FY 2008 Allocation without Legislatively-Designat
ed Line Items, Board Initiatives Ayers Funding
9
Formula Components

Facilities Operations (Infrastructure)
Instruction Administration (IA) Based on
weighted student credit hours

Small School Supplement 750,000 to institutions
with 5,000 or fewer students and less than 110
of SREB Peer APP/FTE
Capital Renewal Percent of Facilities
Replacement Cost
10
Instruction and Administration
Student Credit Hours are weighted by a grouping
of 16 disciplines and by level of course
11
Student Credit Hour Weights
12
Example of Student Credit Hour Weighting
13
Student Credit Hours
3-Year Average CY 2005, 2006, 2007 Student
Credit Hours Conversion to Weighted Student
Credit Hours
14
Relationship of Funding Needs Based on Formula
FundingRelationship of Funding per FTE
The chart represents total formula (instruction
administration, facilities operations, capital
renewal, and small school supplement) divided by
FTE. The chart represents the relationships of
APP/FTE among institutions. For example, MUW
would be 79.7 of MSU.
Funding Relationship at FY 2008 funding of 384
million shown in Light Blue
100.0
101.0
79.7
87.2
112.6
91.4
103.4
80.4
105 Per WSCH
100 Per WSCH
118 Per WSCH
122 Per WSCH
100 Per WSCH
105 Per WSCH
116 Per WSCH
113 Per WSCH
15
Current Allocation at 78.6 of FormulaBased on
FY 2009 Formula Calculation
The percentages reflect the current percentage of
the formula each institution receives.
Current Need 104,817,547
Total Formula Need 490,223,792
Funding necessary to bring UM MSU to JSU
Funding necessary to bring UM up to MSU
16
FY 2009 Appropriation Allocated using Formula
as compared to FY 2008 Actual Funding
17
Sum of the Years Digits in Reverse with ½ Year
Rolling Calculation
18
(No Transcript)
19
What does Rebalancing Mean to MUW?

• Growth over the next several years MUW must grow
  faster than other IHL Schools to prevent
  additional cuts.
• What can we do?
• Some Strategies for growth
• Grow number of transfers (create more 2 2
  agreements with 2 year colleges, innovative
  degree programs to promote transfer).
• Reach out to CAFB by obtaining Air Force
  Friendly status

20
Strategies for Growth

• Grow number of adult learners
• Offer a completer program (General Studies)
• Offer Executive Certificate Programs
• Increase number of high demand graduate
  programs
• Offer more online programs or low-residency
  programs
• Grow in the number of traditional students
• Review scholarships
• Remove obstacles to graduation (course
  availability)
• Offer Flexible Options to students who need to
  change majors
• Offer more options in course length (accelerated
  courses)
• Reach into New Markets
• Establish a Global E-College (select
  undergraduate and graduate programs available on
  campus AND fully online).
• Seek more international articulation
  agreements (going to China in October)

21
Growth Retaining our students

• Retain our students
• Proactive Mentoring of First Year Students
• Early Alert Programs
• Alternatives to Suspension
• Strong Faculty-Based Advising Programs
• Reinforcing Good Learning Behaviors
• Robust Student Support Services
• Relevant and intentional General Education
  Curriculum
• Review of policies governing suspension and
  probation

22
Growth Retaining our Students

• Retaining Qualified Students
• Robust Honors Program
• Relevant Majors (lean and mean, selected
  programs accessible through low or no residency)
• Match Content Delivery to Learning Preferences,
  including integration of more technology-assisted
  learning through Course Redesign and other Active
  Learning Strategies, such as
• Service Learning
• PBL (Problem Based Learning)
• Undergraduate Research

23
Other Strategies

• Differentiate the institution Educating Leaders
• Professional Marketing Campaign
• Ramp-up Efficiencies
• Program review and reallocation of resources
  based upon growth potential

24
How is our internal Operating Budget Determined?

• University assessment and budget priorities
• Legislative appropriation
• Board allocation of appropriation
• Board priorities and guidelines
• Approved tuition rates
• Projected enrollment

25
Budget Timeline

• Legislature sets appropriations
• Planning and Assessment
• PIE recommends and President sets budget
  priorities for coming year.
• IHL allocates appropriations.
• Budget unit managers prepare requests, linked to
  budget priorities, meet with supervising Dean
  and/or cabinet member and review requests.
• Cabinet reviews all requests
• IHL sets tuition rates
• Cabinet makes final budget allocations based on
  budget priorities, and projected revenues.
• IHL reviews budget summaries and approves budget
• Next years request set, submitted, Legislative
  Budget Hearing.

JUNE
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JULY
AUG
SEP
26
MUWs FY 2009 General Fund Operating Budget By
Object
27
MUWs FY2009 General Fund Operating Budget By
Function
28
Costs of Higher Education at a Typical Public
Institution (2004)
Faculty and Professional Staff 42.9
Utilities 4.9
Other Staff 20.7
Library 2
Equipment 2.4
Benefits 15.1
Supplies 3.7
Services 7.4
29
Budget Rebalancing

• Questions/Comments?