CSU BUDGET: the Volatility of the Budget Makes Planning Difficult but Necessary. the Chart

P 10-11, D4

CSU BUDGET: The volatility of the budget makes planning difficult but necessary. The chart below shows a modest range of scenarios.

If CSU drops another 11%, will we be allowed to keep the general fund dollars, as a means of building back the state’s contribution to marginal cost?
Indeed, will we be allowed to drop another 11%, right after CSU stranded others in a 6% cut in ’09-10? Shedding 16% of FTES over two years to protest under-funding is like holding your breath till you turn blue, when a child.
Furloughs—to be or not to be? The state crisis that lurks in the 621M was offset by a fee increase and, for a year, a re-allocation of 10% of salaries, functionalized as furloughs.
While we are told to be relatively confident in both the 10% fee increase and the state provision of 305M to replace federal stimulus funds that replaced the withdrawal of GF from ’09-10 to balance ’08-09, we are told not to count on enrollment increase funding. The state deficit makes that unlikely, as does CSU thinking to drop 11% in FTES to make a point and to accommodate the loss in FTEF to generate FTES, should furloughs be discontinued.

CSUN ASSUMPTIONS: So, the CSUN planning assumptions mediate between the extremes on the chart.

We could face upwards of 37M cut, if the enrollment drop incurs the loss of GF.
Or, if either furloughs continue, we undo the enrollment cut and/or we raise fees higher than 10%, the problem decreases.
Of course, the chart works in the frame of ’10-11, with CA balanced out for ’09-10. At some time GF ’10-11 will be adjusted to account for the imbalance the year before.
Finally, the Governor’s 10% solution in a proposition that would fix higher education’s share of state GF at no less than 10% could increase the budget by 15-20%. This seems a long shot, trailing dedicated oil revenue.
Right now, we assume an 11% drop in FTES, loss of fees but not GF, conversion of furloughs to the elimination of positions, and a 10% fee increase as the main ingredient. They total 23-24M dollars.
The University has not finalized its plan, but the general actions are these.
Use base reserves to write down most of the loss in FTES,
apply the fee increase, cut the divisions at least 5%, and
project deficit financing over no more than D year plus 2.
Because of the many contingencies, divisions were encouraged to plan for even tougher times.

ACTIONS: Later, this report will describe budgeting in the colleges and things that we need to do to anticipate the continued deterioration in state funding. This section summarizes action under way not only to implement the cuts but to adjust strategy to changing conditions in the region, so that we do not drift from mission. Granular details are in college or equivalent reports.

DROP FTES 16% over two years.
Enrollment committees wanted implementation to be easily reversible, impact on diversity minimal, and effect on high school morale not too discouraging.
We raised the bar slightly on admissions from outside the region.
However, in general we enforced policies that controlled enrollment by reinforcing behaviors consistent with improved graduation rates.
We want intentional students: require intent to register, earlier test dates, completed transcripts before term begins, review of change in major after 90 cr to establish the likelihood of graduation within 130 cr, disenrollment for non-payment or non-participation in payment plan, strict interpretation of academic disqualification with elimination of grace term and tight monitoring of appeals, ending of grants for students with 150+ and administrative graduation of those with 130+ and completed requirements, and lower priority to class access for repeaters.
So far we are on target and have ameliorated the impact on diversity, although the change to census categories complicates the analysis of trends.
IMPROVE GRADUATION RATE 9% by 2015 to 49%. Planned are
Selection of more intentional students,
deployment of early warning system from instructors to advisors about performance deficiencies of EOP students and other students in designated large classes,
pilot of summer early start to do remediation substantially before AY,
expansion of stretch Math and Eng that allow students to accelerate the pace of remediation,
use of campus quality fee for supplemental instruction in high DUF courses, and targeted interventions in EOP, Residential Life, HHD, CESCI and COSAM.
Now at 43% compared to the base year of 39% for 6-year graduation rate of first-time, full-time freshmen, CSUN actually is faring well when we run correlations with 40% BlHiAiPI, 40% Pell for FTFTF and 35% for undergraduates in general, over 60% transfer in and out, and SATM25 of 420.
Also, efforts to economize FTES by administrative graduation will target the 5-10% who graduate in years 7 through 9.
ECONOMIZING THE COURSE SCHEDULE: Timely graduation and achieving reduced targets require us to consider carefully how we use staff and faculty to serve students. With 70% of core budget and 90% of instruction in wages and benefits, CSUN has few other options. Further, like other large CSUs, its SFR is 25% higher than the average of Carnegie peers, its management ratio even higher. With higher average salaries because of negotiated settlements, the margin of change for efficiency is thin. Inevitably, much comes to increasing SFR and decreasing tenure-track faculty. We already ran into SFR issues with CACREP, which espouses outcomes but judges by ratios. And those ratios only can rise as long as we price low and bargain high. Actions include
freezing positions,
encouraging hybrid courses and rolling out a 6 day schedule to improve access to large classrooms,
designing 250+ seats in the new science and performing arts complexes,
sharply curtailing use of S-factor small group/independent studies,
demanding that colleges place the highest priority for funding on bottle-necked courses for non—majors, immediate needs of transfers, and required courses for seniors.

We expect elective and S-Factor courses to be reduced. And we expect new curriculum as in MCCAMC and CESCI to explain the reduction in electives, the increase in SFR, etc., that makes it possible to do more with less. Such rationalization makes the curriculum far less rich. But managing this pipeline across all programs is necessary because of scale today and trending tomorrow. We have armed colleges with the prerogative to be liberal with substitutions. Hitting target, keeping student credits consistent with the past, meeting thresholds for F/Sat scheduling, increasing hybrids and large classes, and accruing budget savings suggest success.

TECHNOLOGY: Several games are proceeding simultaneously.
Advancement manages the design of the central, most frequently accessed sites; it has laid the groundwork for an internal user’s web. IT networks the servers, authenticates, secures, load-balances, and integrates systems. Student Affairs leads the effort to virtualize services and personalize/remember access to them. To handle such dispersion, well beyond the agenda setting of a standard committee, the VPs act as an executive council; however, we still struggle to prioritize and manage web projects.
We are in transition generally with technology.
Classroom technology has consisted of rows of CPUs, a master terminal, network and server, and cable.
Management technology has been transactional more than archival, compromised by patches that preserve old practices, reluctant to use systematicity to create work centers that decrease labor costs across the CSU, and reticent to cancel older technologies with few but vocal users.
Personal computing depends on desktop, phone, and printer in each office, though networked; inboxes are crammed because we under-utilize vpn and u-drive; and we print locally though we are networked to copiers and have pdf drivers.
As a result, in AA we are scaling back open labs 80% over five years; 20% will be thin client-server.
Wireless servers will allow users to link with their own portable devices.
We are decommissioning office printers over two years, relying on networked copiers and discouraging the printing of miscellaneous information.
We require all units to be on desktop management to do patches and save power.
We have moved to one LMS,
and we will decide shortly to house technologically enhanced pedagogy behind the fire-walled sign-on of the library. That way, we can use their information skills to build out a learning objects repository, as well as to mirror their approach to instructing users about change.
EXTERNAL SUPPORT: The concluding section will say more on this topic, as a look ahead.
But this year and next, as we look to top over CSUN’s highest year of @25M in sponsored work, we have supplemented NSF and NIH strength in the sciences with three broad areas:
a partnership with LA universities and the Chamber to improve math in K7-9, principal training, and induction, as well as to gather data on teacher preparation and pupil performance—a continuation of an ongoing Carnegie project and a project underwritten by CA DOE, to improve MS math by just-in-time work with teachers;
a RIMI grant spearheaded in CSS, that links junior faculty exploring the relations between mental and physical health in the urban, racialized contexts;
and an effort, lead by MDCOE and HHD, to link together the in-take, business practices, grantsmanship, and billing of diverse departments. Central to this effort, long-term, is the expansion of applied doctorates in health areas. Just as the EDD has rationalized research culture and integrated it with practice, so will these degrees. The current prohibition, besides threatening physical therapy, compelled the library into junior partnership with North Texas.
After righting imbalances due to the canceling of contracts and an unfavorable model for revenue sharing,
ExL has converted consulting on M.E. program design, post-baccalaureate certificate and degree work, mainly on line in cohorts, and the running of summer into blank ink.
Coming on line soon are a policy and a social work MA in CSS.
Our overall goals include adding 15% to the salary base, and multiplying the opportunities for professionals to receive post-baccalaureate training especially in north/northwest LA.
Because of the flip in the economy, many endowment accounts are not paying out. Further, instability in personnel has not helped matter. Fortunately the gradual flow of funds toward the VPAC offsets matters. But ’10-12 calls for the re-examination of the current model.
ASSESSMENT: CSUN has had a thorough mixed model for years.
We benchmark remediation, retention, and graduation rates vs. College Results and CSU figures. As indicated earlier, we plot change accordingly.
We use NSSE and CLA to triangulate value-added in attitudes and analytic capacity. Hence, NSSE sensitizes us to how deeply students value diversity at CSUN;
and we have correlated NSSE and CLA to identify and meet the need for faculty in writing across the curriculum.
Through MDECOE, as complimented by NCATE, we have a database and models for assessing our trained teacher added value. We link that to CSU opinion surveys of school personnel.
We have streamlined program review so that it aligns with assessment; and we have inched the colleges—the departments really—toward broader learning outcomes so they have meaningful Ns once they pool results.
We use data to decide, regard assessment as research, and sponsor projects like learning habits in which faculty can learn how students learn.

SUMMARY: We plan for next year with some assurance since we built balances in anticipation of foul weather from looming clouds. We are restricting expansion obviously. But we will forge ahead on remedial changes and improvement to the GR. We are strengthening policies about continuation because, as with willy-nilly electives and S-factor courses, because inattention leads to waste. And we are focusing program development and research on three areas crucial to regional health and wealth. Heeding Emerson’s warning that things are in the saddle and ride mankind, we plan to reign in technology expenses.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS BUDGET: We begin by building a bridge to CSUN’s thinking.

Focusing mainly on retraction of furlough, reduction in enrollment, and fee increase, CSUN sees a 23.4M problem that, after central solutions, leaves the divisions each with a 5% cut—6.3M for us.
Not tallied, though, is the enrollment cut in ’09-10, which we are covering with 1x funds; this stands us ultimately another 6M.
We are aiming 1/3rd higher because the fragility of the whole budget is obvious. If we remain lucky with a low cut, then we can decide what excess to bank, to invest.
Also, the budget passes over the fact that summer helps us more than other divisions. We are not being asked to return the 2.4M that we got when summer moved to the GF. And through summer in ExL, we generate both salary and “extra.”

A few more cautions are in order.

SFRs will go up, and go up differently across colleges.
There are no FTES targets attached yet because we need to see how freshmen admission shakes out, and we really need the fall/spring continuation rate to predict continuing students for next fall.
We will regard ’10-11 targets and funding subject to severe readjustments, once funding and target break one way or another.
Putting these numbers together, we also accounted for the ratio of permanent employees since we have been directed to view layoff as a last resort.

In previous discussions, we accepted these guides:

Any reduction in student services/EOP advising resources must have agreement from the Director of the Educational Opportunity Program.
Shared responsibilities should be considered first. Courses should be offered for non-majors outside of college first. Demand for own majors should be handled second.
Before eliminating programs, eliminate redundancies. Courses/programs offered in multiple areas will need to adopt common texts and plan joint offerings resulting in reduced costs.
Avoid layoffs.
Maintain student employment at current levels.
No staff replacements or additions, with few exceptions:
Valley Performing Arts Center
Analysts
Development Support

No Academic Affairs information technology staff will be replaced.

Reassigned time should be assessed carefully to ensure cost reductions while also preserving productive capacity and investments in development.
Technology will be used productively by separating functionality from ownership. Every college and area will develop a technology equipment plan that results in the following outcomes by June 2011:
Consolidation of all printers and copiers in administrative and faculty office areas. Printer/copier combinations should be used.
Identify targets for purchasing (with Academic Resources & Planning):
Each faculty or staff member should have only one workstation (i.e., no additional workstations at home)
Use thin client technology, where appropriate
Develop a schedule to take general purpose labs off line. Develop a corresponding facility use plan.
All new programs and program changes will come to Provost’s Council for discussion. We need to demonstrate there is long-term redirection of resources to support the new program.
Lower division non-major labs (particularly in Science & Math and Engineering & Computer Science) should be virtualized to the extent possible within two years.
Early warning systems must be utilized (particularly in Business & Economics and Engineering & Computer Science) to determine when pre-majors and majors are not being successful. Work should continue with Humanities on general technology major.
Space efficiencies should continue and large lecture halls must be used effectively.
Anyone wanting to use specialized, local software and hardware must show cause for the use (as opposed to open source solutions) or funds related to these purchases will be withdrawn from the unit.

THE FUTURE: This chart looks ahead 25 years. The leftmost column grows core funding for CSUN peers by 2.5%. The next column adds a delta to the 2.5% to close the gap over time. The third column presents 33% as the constant tuition, while the next records campus and student responsibility rising to 66%. The first green column says that, from year 7 onward the campus would build to defray at least 10% of the 66% column. The last two columns grow CSUN by 2.5% and figure the cost of this pledge. If we increase non-residents to 7.5% by year 7, we gain 20M. Return to growth, and the campus fee will add 4.9M by then. With planned growth in ExL, we can 6M from a growth portfolio in post-baccalaureate certificates. Certainly, we can aim pay out in excess of an added 2M from Sponsored Programs and Adv. And we should set goals for local property buys. But all this depends on a laddered fee policy that does reflect fantasy, an adjustment toward autonomous revenue generation, changes in CSU policy about non-residents, and a recasting of R and D in CSU. If we accept the cost of our future, then we must build toward its funding,

UPDATE ON AA PLANS FOR ’10-11

CSU BUDGET: In ’08-09, Chancellor Reed threatened to decrease enrollment by 6.5% unless CSU got more money. But then the housing bubble burst. The state not only lacked revenue to make CSU whole, it also nearly collapsed. By summer ’09, it cut CSU nearly 24%, including 305m moved back in time from this year to balance last year and a series of raids that removed another 621m from ’09-10. CSU responded by raising fees 30% and negotiating furloughs for 275m. Furloughs shifted 10% of compensation to general needs for this year.

In fall, CSU began to plan for ’10-11. It accepted a 10% fee increase for next year, and it projected an 11% drop in enrollment for two reasons. First, when furloughed, people still taught and served. If eliminated instead, they will not. Second, when broke, we go for broke. In the worst economy since perhaps the ‘30s, we wagered 17% in FTES or nearly 400m dollars on intimidating the state into giving us more money. Have we won? Recently, the Governor backed a 2.5% enrollment increase if there is money. But the ’10-11 budgets already runs red. We will receive 305m in ’10-11 to replace the 305m withdrawn from this year for last year, we hear. But this year won’t end in balance, either. What does that imply about next year? According to the Governor, we can anticipate a ballot measure in which the people get to say whether they rank prisons or college higher for funding. That is a good thing?