DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
description
Transcript of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
•COMMUNITY COLLEGE SUPPORT FUND–Support Fund Distribution Formula and Implementation
–Support Fund Request and Implications
–Options
–Impact of Budget Reductions on Community Colleges
April 17, 2003
Presented to Ways & Means Education Subcommittee
By: Cam Preus-Braly
2
Community College Mission Statutory ORS 341.009 (1)
The community college is an educational institution which is intended to fill the institutional gap in education by offering broad, comprehensive programs in academic as well as professional technical subjects.
It is primarily designed to provide associate or certificate degree programs for some, serve a transitional purpose for others who will continue baccalaureate or other college work, provide the ability to enter the workforce immediately and serve to determine future educational needs for other students.
It can provide means for continuation of academic education, professional technical training or the attainment of entirely new skills as demands for old skills and old occupations are supplanted by new technologies.
It may also provide the means to coordinate courses and programs with high schools to enhance the Certificate of Advanced Mastery and to accommodate successful transition to college degree programs.
3
State Board of Education Policies
• The State Board of Education has statutory authority to govern Oregon’s community college districts
• As part of that responsibility, the State Board has the authority to develop and implement a formula for the distribution of state resources to fund community colleges
• The State Board develops the formula within the policy framework of access and equity
4
State Board of Education Policies
• Access – All Oregonians should have access to community college services regardless of where they live
• Equity – Each college should receive the same funding per student
• Quality – In January of 2003 adopted a freeze on enrollments to stop the erosion of the dollar value of an FTE
5
Funding Formula
• The passage Ballot Measure 5 in 1991 fundamentally changed the funding of community colleges
• Over time, state resources have grown to be the largest share of revenue for local community college districts
6
Community College Primary Sources of Revenue
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Academic Year
Fund
ing
Lev
el State
District Taxes
Tuition
7
Funding Formula
• As the State Board and CCWD staff looked to the future, it became apparent that a new formula would need to be adopted
• In 1991-93, a temporary formula was enacted in which community colleges received a proportional share of state funds based on past allocations
• Early versions of the current funding formula were first adopted in the 1993-95 biennium
8
Funding Formula Principles
• The overarching principles of the new formula were:– Provide equity in the distribution of resources
– Provide a base for infrastructure and school size
– Equalize property tax revenues per student
– Funding follows the student
• These principles continue to be reflected in the current funding formula
9
Funding Formula Implementation
• Individual elements within the funding formula have stayed relatively unchanged since its adoption in 1993-95– 50% of local property taxes are included– A base factor is included to reflect the
differences in college size– Full-time equivalent enrollments (FTE) are the
basis for distribution following students
10
Basic Formula Equation
State Appropriationplus
50% of Imposed Property Taxes
Equals: Total Formula Funds
Minus: Base Funding
Divided by: Enrollments
Equals: Funds per FTE
11
Future of Funding Formula
• In January of 2003 the State Board of Education directed CCWD to work with the Community College Presidents Council to review and recommend a new formula for 2005-07– Members include:– Wes Channell, Klamath CC, Chair– Mary Spilde, Lane CC– Jess Carreon, Portland CC– Bob Barber, Central Oregon CC– Joe Johnson, Clackamas CC– Travis Kirkland, Blue Mountain CC
12
Property TaxesCollege
Actual 2001-02 RFTE
Rate per
Thousand
Property Taxes Imposed
Taxes per FTE
Blue Mountain 2,349.28 $0.6611 3,008,881 $ 1,281 Central Oregon 3,988.99 $0.6204 7,173,672 $ 1,798
Chemeketa 11,637.35 $0.6259 11,298,620 $ 971 Clackamas 7,792.56 $0.5582 9,004,227 $ 1,155 Clatsop 1,715.84 $0.7785 2,517,860 $ 1,467 Columbia Gorge 845.05 $0.2703 317,708 $ 376 Klamath 1,193.83 $0.4117 1,183,902 $ 992
Lane 12,746.88 $0.6191 10,982,571 $ 862 Linn-Benton 6,765.55 $0.5019 4,631,609 $ 685 Mt. Hood 9,467.29 $0.4416 7,378,789 $ 779 Oregon Coast 461.09 $0.1757 716,742 $ 1,554
Portland 24,851.77 $0.2828 18,640,144 $ 750 Rogue 4,939.67 $0.5128 7,031,022 $ 1,423 Southwestern Oregon 3,029.86 $0.7017 3,391,497 $ 1,119 Tillamook Bay 426.20 $0.2636 653,693 $ 1,534 Treasure Valley 1,797.43 $1.2235 1,407,800 $ 783 Umpqua 3,541.33 $0.4551 2,053,736 $ 580
Totals/Averages 97,549.97 $0.5433 91,392,473 $ 937
13
Impact of Property Taxes on Distribution of State Resources
• No property tax revenues actually leave districts• Including one-half of local property taxes in the
formula does affect the amount of state funds that a community college receives
• The following chart indicates which colleges gain or lose state funds as a result of property taxes being included in the formula
14
Impact of Property Taxes on Distribution
*Projections based on funding included in Governor’s Budget
Community College
Projected 2003-05 State Funding*
Effect of Property Taxes on
State Funding % Change
Blue Mountain $10,402,477 ($277,832) -2.7%
Central Oregon $13,109,665 ($3,797,028) -29.0%
Chemeketa $46,075,028 ($473,855) -1.0%
Clackamas $29,026,204 ($2,033,782) -7.0%
Clatsop $6,614,544 ($1,124,194) -17.0%
Columbia Gorge $5,277,961 $579,385 11.0%
Klamath $6,999,755 $135,119 1.9%
Lane $52,418,609 $1,173,690 2.2%
Linn-Benton $29,046,058 $1,816,253 6.3%
Mt. Hood $40,251,925 $1,773,088 4.4%
Oregon Coast $2,486,292 ($260,299) -10.5%
Portland $98,850,883 $4,267,181 4.3%
Rogue $18,242,284 ($2,603,938) -14.3%
Southwestern Oregon $12,204,669 ($663,832) -5.4%
Tillamook Bay $2,371,298 ($221,586) -9.3%
Treasure Valley $8,790,483 $310,325 3.5%
Umpqua $16,375,806 $1,401,305 8.6%
15
Projected State & Property Taxes per FTE – Property Taxes Included in Formula
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
Stat
e &
Pro
pert
Tax
Rev
enue
s pe
r F
TE
Property Taxes per FTE State Funds per FTE
Average Public
Support per FTE: $3,135
16
Projected State & Property Taxes per FTE – Property Taxes Excluded from Formula
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
Stat
e &
Pro
pert
Tax
Rev
enue
s pe
r F
TE
Property Taxes per FTE State Funds per FTE
Average Public Support per FTE: $3,135
17
Comparisons with OUS and K-12
Property Taxes •Community Colleges: 50% of property taxes imposed included in formula •OUS: No property tax support for public universities•K-12: 100% of property taxes included in formula
State Aid Significant source of revenues for all three education sectors
Tuition •Community Colleges: Provides about 1/3 of local revenues•OUS: Large source of revenue•K-12: Not a source of revenue for public schools
Enrollments •Community colleges: Used in the formula as basis for distribution of state funds•OUS: Used in the RAM as basis for distribution of state funds•K-12: ADMw used as basis for distribution of state funds
18
State Support for Community Colleges—Historically
• Current service plus inflation=biennial allocation
• Not reflective of increases in student enrollment
• No connection to the actual average cost of serving a student
19
New Approach to Community College Funding in 2001
• Budget request based on:– conservative projection of student enrollment– statewide average cost to serve a student
• Average cost per student derived from national reporting (IPEDS) and college revenue and expenditure reports
20
2001 Community College Support Fund Appropriation
• appropriated $464 million for student enrollment of 192,005
• legislature funded 45.9% of projected cost of community college full-time equivalent students
• $32 million, of the $45 million community college enrollment growth appropriation, was lost to state budget reductions
21
Agency Request 2003-2005
.
$2,483 2003-05 state share of average cost per student (45% of projected cost)
208,905 multiplied by students (derived from 3% increase in reimbursable FTE per year)
$518.75 million
22
Enrollment Scenarios
91,125
97,550
95,558
92,064
90,08291,125
97,550
95,558
90,165
88,224
91,125
97,550
95,558
88,267
86,367
91,125
97,550
95,558
86,368
84,509
91,125
97,550
95,558
84,469
82,651
91,125
97,550
95,558
82,57180,793
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Pro
ject
ed E
nro
llm
ents
Governor's Balanced Budget - Projected FTE Governor's Budget Minus 2% - Projected FTE
Governor's Budget Minus 4% - Projected FTE Governor's Budget Minus 6% - Projected FTE
Governor's Budget Minus 8% - Projected FTE Governor's Budget Minus 10% - Projected FTE
23
State Funding Assumptions
State Resources per FTE
$2,299$2,272
$2,301
$2,258
$2,114
$2,164
$2,212
$2,000
$2,050
$2,100
$2,150
$2,200
$2,250
$2,300
$2,350
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
24
Enrollment Scenarios Including Agency Request
91,125
96,069
99,912
102,909
105,996
91,125
97,55095,558
92,06490,082
91,125
97,55095,558
90,16588,224
91,125
97,55095,558
88,26786,367
91,125
97,55095,558
86,36884,509
91,125
97,55095,558
84,46982,651
91,125
97,55095,558
82,57180,793
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
105,000
110,000
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year
Pro
ject
ed E
nro
llm
ents
Agency Request - Projected FTE Governor's Balanced Budget - Projected FTEGovernor's Budget Minus 2% - Projected FTE Governor's Budget Minus 4% - Projected FTEGovernor's Budget Minus 6% - Projected FTE Governor's Budget Minus 8% - Projected FTEGovernor's Budget Minus 10% - Projected FTE
25
Budget Numbers
2003-05 FundingTotal CCSF Appropriation - Gov. Balanced Budget 407,668,252 Net Impact of Payment Shift (April 15 moved to July 15) (5,761,748) State Funds Available for 2003-05 401,906,504 Less: Distance Learning 602,565 COD Allocations 1,590,000 Columbia Gorge Annexation 1,170,000 Subtotal 3,362,565
Biennial Funds Available for Formula Distribution 398,543,939
Harney2122.8%
Malheur3,85912.1%
Lake6398.6%
Klamath2,8364.4%
Jackson7,2203.8%
Josephine 5,379 3.8%
Curry2,33011.0%
Coos10,65517.0%
Douglas16,23316.0%
Lane37,05411.3%
Deschutes13,46810.6%
Crook1,2836.4%
Grant3744.8%
Linn14,39613.8%
Benton11,91814.9%
Lincoln4,4279.9%
Baker7554.5%
Wallowa3054.3%
Union5822.4%
Umatilla7,00810.0%
Morrow8157.2%
Jefferson1,6318.2%
Wasco2,97412.5%
Wheeler785.0%
Gilliam985.2%
Sherman 1377.4%
Hood R.
2,37311.6%
Marion35,494 12.2%
Clackamas33,4389.5%
Multnomah73,607 11.0%
Clatsop5,89416.3%
Columbia
2,8846.5%
Tillamook3,81315.5%
Wash.44,531 9.6%
Yamhill6,4697.4%
Polk5,9629.4%
• CC Students by County• Total Students Enrolled, 2001-02• % of Population Enrolled
Community Colleges
27
All Students2001-02
15,093 17,046
53,618
28,073
8,7015,975 5,782
40,365
28,54631,455
4,141
107,158
16,944 15,168
3,3837,601
17,385
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
College
Und
upli
cate
d H
eadc
ount
28
Community Colleges Served 406,434 Students in 2001-02
17,298
102,056
154,373
93,860
22,09716,750
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
17 & Under 18-24 25-44 45-64 65 & Over Unknown
Age
Num
ber
Ser
ved
29
Increased Student Demand Over the Last Decade
280,000
290,000
300,000
310,000
320,000
330,000
340,000
350,000
360,000
370,000
380,000
390,000
400,000
410,000
1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
Year
Tot
al S
tude
nts
30
Increased Demand for Highly Skilled Workforce
“Oregon’s future will depend on having a critical mass of highly skilled technology workers and researchers.”
“We need to immediately retrain existing workers for today’s high demand jobs.”Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development Report, 2002
“The current supply of graduates produced by Oregon’s community colleges and universities falls short of the demand created by new positions and vacancies in these critical shortage fields.”
Final Report of the Interim Task Force on Health Care Personnel, 2002
31
The Capacity Gap
• Nursing and Allied Health Programs are full but colleges do not have funds to expand to meet market demand.
• Waiting lists for ESL classes• Funding cuts = fewer programs, classes, seats
statewide• Physical plants in need of repair or expansion to
meet the need for classroom and lab space.
32
The Capacity Gap
Professional Technical Programs are the training ground for a highly skilled workforce.
But in 2001-2003 the gap in PT programs grew:
15 AAS Programs were suspended12 Certificate Programs were suspended
17 AAS Programs were deleted 8 Certificate Programs were deleted
33
What are the Options?
• The “cap”…freezing funding allocations to last year’s levels.
• More $$$!• Differentiated Funding • Greater reliance on grant and “other” funds• Cost savings: cut staff, cut programs, cut courses• Tuition Strategies
– Raising Tuition– Differentiated Tuition
34
Tuition/Fees
Tuition increased 12% this year•rates are set by local college boards.•state average yearly tuition and fees for a full-time in-district student = $2,337•tuition for 2002-03 ranges from $40-$55 per credit
Projected average increase next year of 8% or $6.35 per credit for a range of $45 to $60
35
Community College Tuition
-
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
Academic Year
Av
era
ge A
nn
ua
lized
Tu
itio
n
02-03 increase 12% 03-04 projected 8%
Student share of their education for the decade 1992 to 2002 increased from 22% to 33%
36
2002-03 Annual Tuition and Fees: Cost to Students
$3,678
$2,348
$2,610
$3,843
$2,580
$4,014
$1,935
$3,600
$2,274
$3,885
$2,205
$1,992
$2,453
$3,687
$2,370
$4,359
$2,550
$3,720
$2,115
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
EOU
BMCC
TVCCOIT
KCCOSU
LBCC
OSU- Cas
cade
COCCPSU
PCC
ClackCC
MHCC
SOURCC
UOLCC
WOU
ChemCC
Tui
tion
/Fee
s
Eastern Oregon
South Central Oregon
Mid-Willamette Central Oregon Portland/Metro Southern Oregon Eugene Willamette Valley
37
Socio-Economic Benefits
• Return on investment (source: CC Benefits Inc. Study, March 2002)
– 17% ROI in Oregon’s Community Colleges.
– The state of Oregon benefits from improved health, reduced welfare, unemployment and crime saving the public $61.5 million per year.
• Benefits of a community college education (Bureau of Labor Statistics publication)
– Increase wages $100 to $400 per week
– Decreases likelihood of unemployment by 50%