Ejemplo del esquema de las directivas “Nuevo enfoque”

The State University System’s 11 institutions have dozens of other campuses, instructional sites, and centers. The System has more than 3,700 facilities and 82.2 million gross square feet of classrooms, laboratories, offices, residence halls, and other facilities. More than 1.7 million gross square feet were added to the physical plant at various campuses in the 2009-10 fiscal year. This expansion included more than 30 major projects. The System has a large and complex workforce, employing about 60,000 people in a variety of faculty and staff roles. State University System Funding and Expenditures

The System has an overall budget in excess of $9.3 billion. The budget is divided into four major components: Education and General, Contracts and Grants, Auxiliary Services, and Local Funds.

The Education & General (E&G) budget funds the general instruction, research, public service, plant operations and maintenance, student services, libraries, administrative support, and other enrollment-related and stand-alone operations of the universities. The E&G budget consists of two primary sources of revenue: state support and tuition support.

• Before recent successive annual cuts (2005-06), state support provided approximately 70% of the funds used to provide general instruction. State support includes general revenue and lottery proceeds. Student tuition makes up the balance of funds.

• Over the last several years (2007-08 to 2010-11), the universities have seen a decrease in base state funds in excess of $600 million (24%).

• In 2010-11, the state support has dropped to 60% with tuition making up 36%. The remaining support comes from one-time federal stimulus funding.

• With the passage and implementation of the tuition differential fee, the student portion of support for E&G will most likely increase over the next several years. No policy decision has been made as to what percentage resident students should pay for their cost of instruction. (Non-resident students must pay at least 100% of their cost of instruction).

Other components of the State University System budget include the following:

• Contracts and Grants. • Auxiliary Enterprises.

• Local Funds Local Funds – includes the following activities:

o Student Activities, o Intercollegiate Athletics, o Concession Fund,

o Student Financial Aid, and o Technology.

A review of main campus actual expenditures from all

funding sources in the System by program activity over a four- year period (from 2006-07 to 2009-10) reveals the following: • Overall expenditures have decreased 1.0%.

• Instructional expenditures have decreased 2.9%.

• Student support expenditures have increased 0.4%. • Library expenditures have decreased 5.6%.

• Plant operations & maintenance expenditures have increased 5.3%.

• Administration and support services expenditures have increased by 5.1%.

New Fees and Flexible Tuition Policies

Statutory changes following the State University System Governance Agreement with the Legislature included providing the Board of Governors with authority to approve university proposals for flexible tuition, such as block rate tuition and market rate tuition. Informed by research and recommendations from a Board of Governors Tuition and Fee Work Group, the Board approved a regulation in November 2010 outlining the criteria for such university proposals and the process by which the Board will consider and approve the proposals. The Board will entertain proposals from

universities for the first time early in 2011, and any approved proposals could be implemented as early as the fall 2011 term. Productivity, Efficiencies, and Shared Services

With the current environment of budget cuts and rising costs, efficient operation of the State University System of Florida is more important than ever before. With the state ranking 46th

in the nation relative to state funding (in combination with tuition) for public universities, it is only through the efficient allocation of limited resources that a consistent educational experience can be provided year after year. To this end, the member institutions of the State University System have addressed the issue in a number of innovative, and more importantly, substantive ways.

Funding and Degree Productivity

The efficiency of the State University System of Florida has been recognized in various national publications. For instance, in 2009, in conjunction with the Delta Cost Project, Patrick J. Kelly released a report titled “The Dreaded “P” Word: An Examination of Productivity in Public

Postsecondary Education.”17 _{Several items in the report are}

worth noting:

• Florida’s top ranking reflects the overall success of its public postsecondary systems, including the articulation mechanisms that exist between the Florida College System and the State University System.

o Florida is ranked 1st _{in productivity as measured by}

total funding per credential (degrees and certificates) for all public postsecondary education.

o Florida is ranked 8th _{in productivity as measured by}

total funding per credential for public bachelor’s and master’s granting institutions.

o Florida is ranked 5th _{in degrees (and certificates)}

awarded per 100 FTE students for public

postsecondary education (weighted by the value of degrees and certificates in the state employment market – median earnings by award type and level). • The report suggests that a good course of action for states

like Florida whose postsecondary institutions are already achieving high productivity with relatively few resources would be to focus on where to target resources in order to increase degrees in high-demand fields and increase levels of degree completion.

17 _{http://deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/Kelly07-09_WP.pdf}

As can be noted in the following graph, the State University System has continued to produce more graduates, even as funding levels have declined. In 2006-07, the System awarded 64,778 degrees, and the appropriated funding per actual student FTE was $12,008. In 2009-10, the System awarded 73,580 degrees (a 13.6%increase), but the appropriated funding per actual student FTE had dropped to $11,031 (an 8.1%

decrease). Although the System is above average on many productivity measures, the Board of Governors and the System recognize that they must be able to demonstrate to their governmental partners and the greater public that they are continuing to be good stewards of public funds and that they are seeking opportunities and support to improve and to advance Florida’s citizens’ educational attainment and the State’s economic development.

Trends in State University System Funding and Degrees Awarded

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 A p pr op ri at ed Fun d in g per Ac tua l St ud ent F T E ** 0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 D eg re es A w ar d ed - A ll L ev els

Degrees Awarded - All Levels Appropriated Funding Per Actual Student FTE

** FTE – IPEDS Definition

Viability Studies of Academic Programs and Institutes and Centers

In response to budget contractions during the past several years, the state universities have conducted a variety of program evaluations to address projected funding shortfalls and to make informed decisions on the continued viability of programs, services, and activities. To gain greater efficiency, some universities have reduced the array of general education courses available to students, optimizing the utilization of faculty resources. When possible and academically

appropriate, universities have reduced the number of “like” courses delivered across departments (e.g., research methods and/or statistics), choosing to consolidate them into college- wide courses serving larger numbers of students with fewer faculty resources.

Since 2007, the State University System has closed or placed in an inactive status more than 100 institutes and centers, closed or suspended dozens of full degree programs and numerous other tracks within degree programs, and merged some departments and colleges. During 2009-10 alone, the

universities closed 26 more institutes and centers and put an additional 11 in an inactive status. The universities closed an additional 20 degree programs this year and placed another 23 in an inactive status. Again this year, they closed or

suspended many additional tracks within degree programs. Pursuant to Section 1004.03 (1) F.S., the Board of Governors is required to submit an annual report to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Governor listing new degree program reviews conducted within the preceding year, and the results of each review. Tables 4A and 5A in Volume II of this report provide a

summary by broad discipline level of all new programs approved, programs terminated, and programs in which enrollments have been temporarily suspended. More programs were either terminated or suspended than were approved during this reporting period. At the baccalaureate level, there were 7 new programs implemented, 3 suspended, and 10 terminated. At the graduate level, 15 new programs were implemented, 10 were terminated, and 16 were

suspended. Of this group, four new doctorates were

approved by the Board of Governors and one was terminated. During this reporting period, no new degree programs were reported by the universities as having been considered for approval but denied by their board of trustees. However, it is important to note that the new degree approval process includes review by multiple university faculty and

administrative committees before a proposal is taken to the trustees for consideration. This process is designed

specifically to ensure that each proposal submitted to the trustees meets certain criteria and that each proposed program supports the mission and goals of the university and the System.

Coordination of Academic Programming in the System The Board of Governors Academic and Student Affairs

Committee has been working with a Council of Academic Vice Presidents (CAVP) work group to determine if there are better ways to organize and coordinate academic program delivery across the State University System. The work group has outlined the following objectives: (1) to ensure an optimal level of accountability with regard to the efficient use of state and tuition-based resources in addressing the broad goals of the State University System and its member institutions; (2) to

facilitate collaboration, articulation, and coordination across the State University System with regard to meeting access and statewide needs when considering recommendations for approval, inactive status, and/or termination of state- subsidized degree programs; and (3) to develop and

implement a systematic process for the annual review of the degree productivity of academic units across the State

University System. This team has been reviewing System and institution data on academic degree program delivery,

participation, and productivity at all levels and will submit findings and recommendations to the Board of Governors early in 2011.

Administrative and Operational Efficiencies and Shared Services

The efficient use of resources provided by the state, students, parents, and private donations has been a priority of the System for many years. The universities have looked at various operations to determine whether certain functions could be done better and/or more efficiently if privatized or outsourced than if performed by in-house personnel.

Universities have outsourced numerous functions over time, e.g., food service, lawn maintenance, custodial services, bookstores, building maintenance, and printing services. Universities conduct ongoing reviews of services to determine if additional functions should be outsourced. Universities also continue to review and to act upon numerous shared services opportunities.

Although each university has made progress across multiple fronts, most of the efficiencies gained in 2010 fall into two broad categories: administrative and operational. In terms of administrative efficiencies, some institutions have

implemented hiring freezes, early retirement incentives, or even layoffs to streamline their payrolls. Additionally, as referenced above, savings have been realized through the internal reorganization of departments to eliminate redundancies and therefore to increase overall efficiency. The operational efficiencies achieved by the universities illustrate the creativity and innovative nature of higher education in Florida. From the use of solar power to offset power needs and to heat water, to the use of power during off- peak times to make ice that will be used later, saving energy has been at the forefront of the improvements in operations. Such conservation not only saves the taxpayers of the State of Florida money, but also preserves the environment shared by all Floridians.

The State University System has made great progress in reducing campus energy consumption and costs over the past three years. These reductions have afforded tremendous benefit to the System and resulted in significant operational savings. From 2007-08 to 2009-10, the total amount spent on energy (electricity, natural gas, and other fuels) did not increase, even though the amount of conditioned space

increased by more than 6%, and student FTE increased by 3%. Using the national EPA EnergyStar benchmark, the energy performance indicator (EPI), the State University System reported a 3% EPI decrease, or reduction in the kBTU consumption per gross square foot of energy.

Each university has specific metrics related to energy

reduction, sustainability, and green initiatives, but they share the common goal of improving energy efficiency while maintaining the desired level of service to the campus community. These efforts include vigorous participatory

student and staff education and behavior modification efforts. Further, the institutions have adopted the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified standards (or equivalent alternative) for all major new construction and renovation projects, with schools typically adopting LEED silver or gold.

Libraries

Recognizing that the current economic uncertainty

underscores the need for cooperation and collaboration among all sectors, and recognizing the need to thoughtfully plan for the future of libraries, the Chancellor of the State University System and the Chancellor of the Florida College System jointly appointed the Task Force on the Future of Academic

Libraries in Florida in July 2010. Appointees include library

directors, chief information officers, and provosts from the State University System and the Florida College System, as well as representatives from Independent Colleges and Universities, public libraries, public schools, the State Library, and the Department of Education. The Task Force has been charged with determining a vision and developing a strategic plan for public academic libraries by January 2012.

State University System Central Office

The State University System is governed by a 17-member Board of Governors, 14 of whom are appointed by the Governor, one is a representative of the faculty, one is a student representative, and one is the Commissioner of Education. The Board of Governors has a staff of 53

legislatively authorized positions to carry out the day-to-day operations of the System. These functions include, but are not limited to, System coordination; ensuring accountability;

collaborative data collection, research, analysis, policy development, and strategic planning related to academic, student, research, and economic development issues; budget and finance activities; facilities planning; cross-sector

articulation; and compliance monitoring.

Like the overall state budget, the Board’s general office budget has seen a decline in positions and funding over the last several years. Positions have decreased from a high of 65 to the current 53, and the operating budget has dropped from $7.1 million in 2006-07 to $6.2 million in 2010-11 (equal to less than one-tenth of 1% of the System’s total budget). By

comparison, the North Carolina Governing Board has 98 employees with an $11.5 million budget, the Texas

Coordinating Board has 307 employees with a $51 million budget, and the Georgia Board of Regents has 388 employees with a $95 million budget.

Personnel costs constitute 81% of the Board’s general office operating budget. The largest expense obligation is the rental fee of $240,000 paid to the Florida Department of Management Services.

The 2010-11 operating budget includes $1.5 million in federal stimulus funds that is supporting approximately 20 of the 53 authorized positions. If these funds are not replaced, there will be a detrimental impact on the Board’s ability to carry out its constitutional obligations.