advancing the university academic plan

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)


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)


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)


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)


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%


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


• 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)


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


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

advancing the university academic plan

Documents

student demand

university academic

student costsperstudent

university of alberta

academic activities

student revenues

budget situation

innovation productivity