advancing the university academic plan
DESCRIPTION
Advancing the University Academic Plan. Report to Faculty Councils: Fall 2013 Rhonda Lenton , Provost & Vice President Academic and Gary Brewer, Vice President Finance & Administration. Outline. External Context Successes Challenges (VPFA) York University Budget - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Advancing the University Academic Plan
Report to Faculty Councils: Fall 2013Rhonda Lenton, Provost & Vice President Academic andGary Brewer, Vice President Finance & Administration
2
Outline
1) External Context
2) Successes
3) Challenges (VPFA) York University Budget
4) Moving the University Academic Plan Forward
5) Academic and Administrative Prioritization
3
1. External: Ontario Post-secondary Education
Continuing demand for
higher education
Increasing Higher Education costs &
scrutiny of tuition fees
Strategic Mandate
Discussions
Emphasis on differentiation, innovation & productivity
4
Growth in Student Demand for Baccalaureate Education: 2009 - 2025
David Trick, Tyndale Presentation, March 19, 2013
5
Per-student revenues compared to per-student costs
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200Per-student costs (~4-5%)
CPI inflation (2%)
Per-student revenue(~1-2%)
David Trick, Tyndale Presentation, March 19, 2013
6
Risks to Higher Education
Risks
Accessibility
Sustainability
Educational quality e.g., pitting teaching vs research
7
Government Responses
Outcomes-Based Funding Approach
Credit Transfer
Technology Enhanced Learning
Productivity and Innovation Fund
Differentiation
8
Competitor Responses
Alternate sources of revenueStrategic Enrolment Management
Improved accountability
Public Relations & Communications
Budget cuts
Enhancing innovationDiversifying complement
Budget efficiency measures
Exploiting technology
9
2. How Are We Doing?
Enhancing Teaching and Learning e.g., Teaching Commons, AIF
Research Intensification e.g., SRP, CRC
Strengthening Interdisciplinarity and Comprehensivenesse.g. new programs
Enriching Student Experience e.g., YGS, First Year, PRASE
Building Community and Extending Global Reach e.g., ONCAT initiatives, bridging programs
Promoting Effective Governance
Academic Quality Student Success Community Engagement
Numerous Successes on Priorities
10
GPA of Entering Undergraduates 2006/07 to 2012/13
70-74% 75-79% 80-84% 85-89% 90-94% GE 95%0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Grade Distribution of Full-time Year 1 Secondary School Registrants
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2012/13 2012/13
Also continue to strengthen GPA: in 70-74% category over time, although not as strong in 85% - 94% last year.Source: OIRA
11
Cumulative Change in Tenure Stream Faculty Complement: 2002-03 to 2013-14 (not including Librarians)
Significant complement recovery facilitated by strategic funds
Source: Office of VPA&P
12
3. Challenges We Face
Ability to continue to
advance UAP
Uncertainty regarding
MTCU directions
Reputation Enrolment
Financial: gap between
revenue and expenditure is unsustainable
13
Financial Gap
Annual Budget Cuts
MTCU Efficiency Measures 2013-14
New Tuition Fee
Framework
Financial downturn
2008
Expendituresexceed
revenues
Budget Presentation
14
Budget (VPFA)
15 Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
Review of Budget Allocations – 2006/07 to 2015/16 In order to provide additional context to the operating budget
allocations made over the past several years, a summary was prepared showing budget allocations from the June 2004 budget to the June 2012 budget.
The summary shows the growth in revenues and costs for fiscal years 2006/07 through 2015/16:
Total expense growth over that period is projected at $208.8 M (primarily through tuition fee increases and enrolment growth)
The single largest increase in expenses is for annual compensation increases and pension deficit special payments ($173.4 M)
The results are shown in following chart (and more detail in the Senate
presentation Appendix).
16
Revenue/Expense Increase – 2006/07 to 2015/16$
mill
ions
($150)
($100)
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Other
Institutional
Faci lities/Capital/EnergyManagement
Student Financial Support
Academic
Compensation
Budget Cuts
Revenue IncreaseCumulative Total of Annual Budget Cuts:
$483.2 M
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
17
Budget Plan 2012-2016 (Approved June 2012)
(in $millions)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
752.5 766.7 782.1 801.2
749.3 774.5 788.2 793.9
3.2 (7.8) (6.1) 7.3
Carryforward Surplus/(Deficit) 0.2 3.4 (4.4) (10.5)
Cumulative Surplus/(Deficit) 3.4 (4.4) (10.5) (3.2)
Budget Cut 3.25% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%
Budget Plan 2012-2016
Revenue
Expenditures
Annual Surplus/(Deficit)
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
18 Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
Pension Valuation –Going Concern and Solvency Deficits
Going Concern Deficiency
Solvency Deficiency Status
2007 $44.1 $27.8 Filed in 2008
2008 $265.6 $281.4 Not filed
2009 $228.4 $192.7 Not filed
2010 $217.2 $198.8 Filed in 2011
2011 $283.0 $387.0 Not filed
2012 $219.5 $354.0
($ millions)
* Preliminary numbers
*Valuation assumptions still being finalized.
Operating budget has incorporatedspecial pension paymentsas follows:
• $ 5M in 2010/11• Increasing to $15M in 2011/12• Increasing to $25M in 2012/13• Increasing to $34M in 2013/14
Note: These special payment amounts are in addition to regular annual pension contributions of about $40M.
19
Emerging Budget Outlook - Summary
• Revenue outlook is significantly worse than June 2012 Plan:
– Reduced operating grants from MTCU efficiency targets - $2.8M / $5.5M– Reduced interest income - $1 to $3M (lower projected cash balances)
– Reduced revenue from fee increases - $4 to $16M (2013 gov’t announcement on fees provides 3% increases vs. 4.5% assumed in June 2012 plan)
– Further revenue constraints from emerging enrolment challenges– Domestic enrolment plan reduced through planning period– Further international growth can only partially offset domestic drop
• Cost changes to from the June 2012 Plan include:– Benefit cost escalation - $2 to $3M– Science/Engineering budget rebasing - $2.5M– Some offset to cost pressures by reducing projected compensation
escalation and lower projected energy costs (due to success of energy mgt program and lower gas prices)
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
20
REVENUE Changes – from June 2012 Plan
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Enrolment Growth Domestic
(5.00) (7.00) (6.00) (4.00)
International In Plan In Plan In Plan 4.00
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Fee IncreasesDomestic - U/G (3.70) (7.70) (11.70) (3.70) International - Regular fee Increase In Plan In Plan In Plan 2.50
- Municipal tax recovery increase 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 - "Head tax" recovery increase 0.90 1.80 2.70 3.60
(2.54) (5.62) (8.70) 2.72 Government Grant Adjustments
Policy Levers (2.80) (5.50) (5.50) (5.50) International Enrolment Taxes (1.16) (2.08) (3.00) (3.92)
(3.96) (7.58) (8.50) (9.42) Other
Interest Income (1.00) (2.00) (3.00) (3.00) (1.00) (2.00) (3.00) (3.00)
Total Revenue Change - increase/(decrease) (11.00) (20.70) (24.70) (8.20)
$ million
Reductions from June 2012: 400 to 700 FFTEs)
June 2012 Plan growth: ( +250 FFTEs in 2013/14 onwards) Additional growth: ( +100 FFTEs in 2013/14 onwards)
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
21
EXPENSE Changes – from June 2012 Plan
$ million2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
VPA/P - domestic growth impact (60% share) (3.00) (4.20) (3.60) (2.40) VPA/P - International Fee/growth increase share (72% share) 1.08 1.08 1.08 5.76 Tuition-set-aside - Student support In Plan In Plan In Plan 0.80 Faculty of Science/Engineering- Budget Rebasing 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
0.58 (0.62) (0.02) 6.66
In plan (2.00) (5.00) 10.00 Employee Benefit Cost Inflation 3.00 2.00 - -
In Plan In Plan In Plan In Plan3.00 - (5.00) 10.00
Marketing Campaign - 0.50 0.50 0.50 Restructuring Fund 3.00 Copyright Office 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Energy - energy mgt prgm/reduced cost (1.80) (1.80) (1.80) (1.80)
1.55 (0.95) (0.95) (0.95)
5.13 (1.57) (5.97) 15.71
Compensation/Benefit
Academic Investments
Compensation
Pension Special Payments
Strategic Investments
Total Expenditure Change - increase/(decrease)
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
22
Budget Plan 2013-2017 – Assuming ATB Cuts (to balance)
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2012 Plan (7.8) (6.2) 7.3 7.3
(11.0) (20.7) (24.7) (8.2)
Expenditure Changes (June 2013) 5.1 (1.6) (6.0) 15.7
(23.9) (25.3) (11.4) (16.6)
2013-14 increase by 3% 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 8.4 8.4 8.4
2.1 2.1 -
12.6 21.0 23.1 23.1
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2013 Plan (11.3) (4.3) 11.7 6.5 3.4 (7.9) (12.2) (0.5)
Revised Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) (7.9) (12.2) (0.5) 6.0
Budget Cuts 6.50% 5.50% 4.00% 0.00%
Revenue Changes (June 2013)
(in $millions)
Prior Year Carryforward
Budget Cuts:Revised Annual Surplus/( Deficit) - before cut adjustments
2014-15 increase by 2%
2016-17 No Cut
Total Adjustment to Budget Cuts
2015-16 increase by 0.5%
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
23
EXPENSE Changes – additional targeted cuts
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17Defer Other Post Employ't Benefit Contributions 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Defer Additional Sinking Fund Contributions 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Reduce Building Maintenance Funding (4 years) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Reduce Energy Management program base funding 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduce Insurance funding provision 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50
Targeted Expense Reductions
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
• Rather than responding to the deterioration in our financial outlook through increases to the 3.5% budget cuts already incorporated into the June 2012 Plan, an alternative plan update is being proposed.
• This proposed budget plan update identifies a number of specific targeted cuts to certain administrative/central budget provisions, in order to assist in balancing the budget over the next four years.
• These targeted cuts have potentially adverse consequences – and are not sustainable indefinitely. Since they cannot be continued indefinitely, they are not base cuts – and therefore the underlying structural budget issues remain.
• The targeted cuts outlined below provide a temporary 4-year window to address the serious budget issues facing the University.
24
Budget Plan 2013-2017 – (applying targeted expense reductions)
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2012 Plan (7.8) (6.2) 7.3 7.3
(11.0) (20.7) (24.7) (8.2)
Expenditure Changes (June 2013) 5.1 (1.6) (6.0) 15.7
(23.9) (25.3) (11.4) (16.6)
16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5
2013-14 maintain 3.5% - - - - - - -
- - 8.4
- - - 8.4
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2013 Plan (7.4) (8.8) 5.1 8.3 3.4 (4.0) (12.8) (7.7)
Revised Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) (4.0) (12.8) (7.7) 0.6
Budget Cuts 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 2.00%
Revenue Changes (June 2013)
Prior Year Carryforward
Budget Cuts:
Revised Annual Surplus/( Deficit) - before targeted cuts
2014-15 maintain 3.5%
2016-17 Cut of 2%
Total Adjustment to Budget Cuts
2015-16 maintain 3.5%
Additional Targeted Cuts (June 2013)
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
25
Divisional Budget Summary
Division
President's Division 1.1 0.9 1.4VP Advancement 1.7 1.3 2.3VP Research 3.0 2.3 3.6VP Finance & Administration 9.0 5.6 10.7
VP Academic
Education 9.3 6.6 8.2Environmental Studies 1.6 1.1 1.2Fine Arts -4.4 -7.9 -6.5Glendon -3.7 -4.3 -4.6Graduate Studies 4.0 4.3 4.4Health 3.7 1.5 3.5Liberal Arts & Professional Studies -14.7 -23.0 -20.2Libraries 0.8 0.0 0.4Osgoode Hall Law School -3.0 -1.9 -0.4Schulich School of Business -7.5 -7.6 -10.2Science/ Engineering -3.5 -8.3 -6.2YUELI 7.6 9.5 9.4 On PlanVPA&P 16.9 12.6 12.2
AVP Students 5.1 2.6 6.2VPA Total 12.1 -14.9 -2.5
Actual 2011/12
Budget 2012/13
Draft Year-End2012/13 Actuals Comments
(in $millions)Positive to PlanPositive to PlanStrong Results in ORU'sPositive to Plan
FacultyPositive to PlanOn PlanPositive to PlanSlightly Negative to PlanOn PlanExceeded Enrolment Targets
Positive to PlanPositive to Plan
Positive to PlanOn PlanPDP Results Positive to PlanNegative to PlanPositive to Plan
On Plan
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
26
4. Implications
Challenge is how to best advance the University Academic Plan within this context
Faculties in-year deficits continue to rise - expected to average about $25 - $30m in next couple of years
Projected cumulative budget cuts between 2006/07 and 2015/16 is $483.2 million
Unsustainable
27
Immediate Next Steps• Significant curtailment of major capital projects without
funding in hand
• Align fundraising plan with priorities
• Finalize and transition to new budget model
• Identify and complete in-flight projects from PRASE, SEM and AIF that will demonstrably advance UAP
28
Moving the Plan Forward
More fundamental change is required to realize strategic vision in UAP
Will require: Reductions in expenses New revenue Strategic investment
Challenge is how to best identify opportunities
Process must rely on: evidence-based, collegial and transparent decision-making “strategic planning modalities that promote and permit
tough choices”
29
Five Year Outlook Launch an academic and administrative prioritization
initiative Integrate AAP and PRASE as one exercise
Align all plans to optimally advance UAP and support strategic vision in SMA
Respond to Employment Engagement Survey
30
Summary of Major InitiativesMay 13 Sept
13Jan 14 May 14 Sept 14 Jan
15May 15
Sept 15 Sept 16 Sept 17
Advance PRASE, AIF and SEM in-flight initiatives central to UAP and SMA
Complete Final SHARP Budget
SHARP Shadow budget year
SHARP Transition Period 2015 – 2018
Expand PRASE to Academic & Administrative Prioritization initiative Year 1 – Data Collection - Report due end of June
AAP Year 2 – 4: Response Period AAP Year 5 - evaluation
Align all plans as we move forward AAP informs enrolment, budget, complement, fund-raising and capital plans
Consultations on new UAP
New UAP 2015 - 2020
Four year period to balanced budget requires innovation in efficiency measures and new revenue generation
Balanced budget
Employee Engagement Response Potential for second survey
31
5. What is Academic & Administrative Prioritization? AAP is a structured assessment process that reviews and ranks an
organization’s programs and services in order of priority according to a consistent set of criteria.
It allows an institution to: identify strengths (what is being done well) identify challenges facilitate transparent and evidence-based decision-making on
opportunities for new directions and opportunities for change.
32
What is included?
A program or service refers to a collection of activities that consume resources including: academic programs student services administrative functions
Examples: undergraduate programs graduate programs research programs IT, Human Resources, facilities
Level of specificity to be determined e.g., degree program discrete enough to permit real analysis
33
Why do It?There are at least four reasons for York to pursue AAP now:
To fully realize the University Academic Plan & SMA
To develop evidence-based approach to our Strategic Mandate Agreement
To assess efficiency of shared service programs
To ensure sustainability of the University
34
AAP: Principles
Advancing York’s mission and University Academic Plan
Transparent
Collegial
Evidence-based
35
Typical Criteria used to EvaluateCriteria WeightHistory and expectations of program – why was the program developed? Has it adapted to adjust to context?External demand for the program by prospective students, employers, the community, government now and in the future?
Internal demand by students, employees, or other university programs/services now and in the future?
Quality/qualifications of inputs – students, faculty, staff, technology, space, facilities/equipment, etc.Quality of outcomes or deliverables such as teaching awards, grant dollars, student retention and graduation rates, comparators to provincial benchmarks, etc
Size, scope and productivity – how many services are offered? how many are served? measures of productivity?
Revenue and other resources associated with the program or with the base budget – current process improvements underway to streamline operations
Costs and other expenses as well as specific challenges
Impact, justification, and essentiality – what are the benefits to the institution? The mission? UAP?
Opportunity analysis – what opportunities exist for strengthening the program or service? for efficiencies? for collaboration?
36
AAP: Process AAP Steering Group oversees process
Programs complete template; comments from the relevant Dean/administrator
Two task forces analyze academic and administrative submissions in relation to criteria
Submit reports to President and VPs
Collegial review and implementation
37
Critical Path for AAP in 2013 - 2014
June – October 2013Develop AAP plan including:• Community
consultation and communication strategy
• Program lists • Criteria and
templates• Data for templates
November 2013 – February 2014
Distribute templatesPrograms complete and submit templatesTask Forces established and trained
March – June 2014
Task Forces analyse submissions and prepare reports
38
Discussion• Questions, initial thoughts…
For more details: See the May 2013 report of the Vice-Presidents to Senate:
http://www.yorku.ca/secretariat/senate/agenda/2012-2013/documents/2013-May/20130523Presentation.pdf
39
Appendix
40
Successes: Enhancing Teaching and Learning
Strategic Priorities:• Leadership in eLearning• Experiential education• Student learning outcomes• Curricular innovation
Successes:• Academic Innovation Fund supports systematic approach to
innovation• eLearning Strategic Report• Participation in Ontario University Online Consortium• Teaching Commons supports teaching development• New leadership in continuing and professional education
41
Successes: Research IntensificationStrategic Priorities:• Enhanced research reputation• Strategic Research Plan and emerging opportunities• Enhanced ORUs• Outreach and partnerships locally and internationally• Graduate students and program profile
Successes:• Strategic Research Plan 2013-2018: "Building on Strength“• Increase in external funding despite flat Tri-Council funding levels• New Canada Research Chairs• Implementation of new Senate policy on Organized Research Units• York ranked 4th in Ontario on research impact• Launch of Innovation York
42
Successes: Enriching Student Experience
Strategic Priorities:• Student quality• Transition to university/first year experience• Student engagement and success
Successes:• Enhanced York Graduate Scholarship to attract high quality
graduate students• AIF projects focused on first year experience (e.g., YUStart)• PRASE projects:
• Academic advising dashboard• Active academic calendar
• Scholarship program under review• Increasing GPA on track in most Faculties• Renewal of full-time complement
43
Successes: Building Community & Extending Global Reach
Strategic Priorities:• Community engagement• International partnerships and students• Student mobility
Successes:• Expanded outreach locally and internationally• Expanded Experiential Education in many Faculties - institutional
strategy to be developed in 2013/2014• On-going leadership in access and student mobility:
college-transfer credit ONCAT projects bridging programs (TYP, IEP) cross-registration proposal York-Seneca partnership/York-Ryerson MOU
• Attraction of international students to York
44
Successes: Strengthening Interdisciplinarity and Comprehensiveness
Strategic Priorities:• Coordinated approach to enrolment planning (SEM)• Expansion of health, engineering, sciences, professional programs in
support of increased comprehensiveness
Successes:• Strategic Enrolment Management in partnership with Faculties to
achieve enrolment targets • Growth and program development in targeted areas, e.g., Accounting,
Finance, Global Health, Electrical Engineering, Conference Interpreting
• Establishment of Lassonde School of Engineering• Expansion of interdisciplinary curriculum building on strengths in liberal
arts and professional programs