University ContractsUniversity Contracts

• Follow-up from August meetingFollow-up from August meeting• Contract SpecificationsContract Specifications

– Fiscal SpecificationsFiscal Specifications– Performance ExpectationsPerformance Expectations– Incentives and PenaltiesIncentives and Penalties

• Data CollectionData Collection• Audience InputAudience Input• Council DiscussionCouncil Discussion

DisputeDispute

MediationMediation CancellationCancellation

CancellationCancellation

RenegotiationRenegotiation

(see next (see next slide)slide)

MediationMediation

RenegotiatioRenegotiationn

Cancellation

Cancellation

Changes to Draft ContractChanges to Draft Contract

• Point of Contact – added Point of Contact – added Chancellor’s designeeChancellor’s designee

• Cancellation – ensures at least a six-Cancellation – ensures at least a six-month noticemonth notice

• Term of Contract – 3 years with Term of Contract – 3 years with annual extensionsannual extensions

• Waivers – deleted languageWaivers – deleted language• Resolution of Disputes – as Resolution of Disputes – as

discusseddiscussed• Signatures – added all members of Signatures – added all members of

both boardsboth boards

Fiscal SpecificationsFiscal Specifications

CPI Adjusted History of Overall CPI Adjusted History of Overall University System Funding per University System Funding per

FTEFTE

$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

GR Lottery Tuition

CPI Adjusted Funding per FTE for CPI Adjusted Funding per FTE for Enrollment Growth at FSU by LevelEnrollment Growth at FSU by Level

ContracContract t

ProposProposalal

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Lower Level Upper Level Graduate I

Contract Undergraduate Contract Graduate

Contract (Below)/Above Actual Contract (Below)/Above Actual Funding of UF & FSU Over 5 Funding of UF & FSU Over 5

YearsYears

$(20,000,000)

$-

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Comparison Comparison of State of State and and Student Student Fee Fee Support Support per FTE of per FTE of Florida vs. Florida vs. Top 5* Top 5* Public Public UniversitieUniversitiess

*Based on *Based on Vanguard Vanguard RankingsRankings

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

UC-BERKELEY (1

)

MIC

HIGAN (9

)

UCLA (10)

WIS

CONSIN (1

3)

UC-SAN D

IEGO (1

4)

UF (39)

FSU (69)

USF Not R

anke

d

Student Fees

State Support

OptionsOptions

1.1. Specify the level of General Revenue Specify the level of General Revenue funding and the amount of funding per funding and the amount of funding per student for enrollment growth and student for enrollment growth and declines. ORdeclines. OR

2.2. Indicate that the Board of Governors (or Indicate that the Board of Governors (or Legislature) will request (or Legislature) will request (or appropriate) sufficient funds to enable appropriate) sufficient funds to enable the University to meet its performance the University to meet its performance standards.standards.

Staff RecommendationsStaff Recommendations1.1. The Board of Governors should request The Board of Governors should request

or Legislature should appropriate or Legislature should appropriate sufficient funds to enable the University sufficient funds to enable the University to meet its performance standards.to meet its performance standards.

2.2. The state should establish a constant The state should establish a constant rate of funding FTE growth by levelrate of funding FTE growth by level. .

– When available resources decline, the When available resources decline, the amount of FTE growth that is funded should amount of FTE growth that is funded should be adjusted rather the rate of funding per be adjusted rather the rate of funding per FTE. FTE.

– Unfunded FTE could then be provided for Unfunded FTE could then be provided for once state revenues improve.once state revenues improve.

Fee FlexibilityFee Flexibility

2003-04 General Appropriations Act2003-04 General Appropriations Act

Resident FeesResident Fees 2003 2003 Summer Summer

2003-04 2003-04 Fall/Spring Fall/Spring

Lower Level CoursesLower Level Courses $ 58.45$ 58.45 $ 62.83$ 62.83

Upper Level CoursesUpper Level Courses $ 58.45$ 58.45 $ 63.83$ 63.83

Graduate Level CoursesGraduate Level Courses $ 147.67$ 147.67 $ 158.74$ 158.74

LawLaw $ 167.83$ 167.83 $ 180.41$ 180.41

Non-Resident FeesNon-Resident Fees

Lower Level CoursesLower Level Courses $ 302.99$ 302.99 $ 325.71$ 325.71

Upper Level CoursesUpper Level Courses $ 302.99$ 302.99 $ 325.71$ 325.71

Graduate Level CoursesGraduate Level Courses $ 469.20$ 469.20 $ 504.39$ 504.39

LawLaw $ 488.73$ 488.73 $ 525.38$ 525.38

The out-of-state fee per credit hour is hereby The out-of-state fee per credit hour is hereby established for the 2003-04 fiscal year as follows:established for the 2003-04 fiscal year as follows:

2003-04 General Appropriations Act2003-04 General Appropriations Act

Funds in Specific Appropriation 123 are Funds in Specific Appropriation 123 are based upon the following full-time based upon the following full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment:equivalent (FTE) enrollment:

Lower LevelLower Level 57,94957,949

Upper LevelUpper Level 74,07574,075

GraduateGraduate 27,58027,580

TotalTotal 159,604159,604

Fee Flexibility AlternativesFee Flexibility Alternatives• Limited FlexibilityLimited Flexibility

– Cap revenue rather than specify fees Cap revenue rather than specify fees in provisoin proviso

– Based on missionBased on mission– Full flexibility as an alternative to Full flexibility as an alternative to

growthgrowth– Based on programsBased on programs– Flexible range alternative Flexible range alternative

• Unlimited FlexibilityUnlimited Flexibility– Non-resident and graduate onlyNon-resident and graduate only– Full flexibility for all student levels Full flexibility for all student levels

and institutionsand institutions

Flexibility Based on MissionFlexibility Based on MissionTie to national average or upper quartile by Tie to national average or upper quartile by

SREB type of institutionSREB type of institution

Pro: Pro: • Forces conformity to Forces conformity to national normsnational norms• Provides the most Provides the most funding increase to the funding increase to the institutions that are institutions that are the least competitive the least competitive in funding in funding • Provides a price Provides a price incentive for incentive for enrollment in smaller enrollment in smaller universities universities

Con: Con: • Does not Does not provide the same provide the same funding to all funding to all universitiesuniversities• Does not Does not provide market-provide market-based pricingbased pricing

Flexibility Tied to Enrollment Flexibility Tied to Enrollment PlansPlans

Full flexibility at universities that do not plan to Full flexibility at universities that do not plan to grow. grow.

Cap others. Cap others.

Pro:Pro:1.1.Provides full flexibility to Provides full flexibility to

universities with most universities with most demanddemand

2.2.Provides full flexibility to Provides full flexibility to Research I universities Research I universities where fees are most below where fees are most below peers peers

3.3.Restricts student costs at Restricts student costs at institutions that continue to institutions that continue to provide expanded access provide expanded access

Con:Con:1.1.Could Could

differentially differentially affect access in affect access in some regions of some regions of the state the state depending on depending on how it is how it is implementedimplemented

Option: multicampus universities should be Option: multicampus universities should be allowed to declare individual campuses to be allowed to declare individual campuses to be fully developedfully developed

Differentiate Fees by Differentiate Fees by ProgramProgram

Based on anticipated salary of graduates Based on anticipated salary of graduates Option:Option: Could be limited to honors programs Could be limited to honors programs

Pro:Pro:1.1.Manages student Manages student

cost based on cost based on anticipated anticipated ability to payability to pay

2.2.Uses job market Uses job market to determine to determine pricingpricing

Con:Con:1.1.If price differences are very If price differences are very

large may provide a cost-large may provide a cost-based disincentive to based disincentive to enrollment in state priority enrollment in state priority programsprograms

2.2.Typically only done for Typically only done for graduate professional graduate professional programsprograms

Recommendation:Recommendation: Should be a local option if this Should be a local option if this is pursued because the precision required to do is pursued because the precision required to do this properly is probably not possible at the this properly is probably not possible at the state level.state level.

Unlimited Flexibility Unlimited Flexibility • Graduate and Out-of-State only, could Graduate and Out-of-State only, could

be used in combination with policies be used in combination with policies discussed above.discussed above.

• Full flexibilityFull flexibility

Pro:Pro:

Allows fees to Allows fees to adjust to market adjust to market conditionsconditions

Con:Con:

Could result in Could result in dramatic increases. dramatic increases. However, this could be However, this could be mitigated by mitigated by performance performance measures related to measures related to accessaccess

Staff RecommendationsStaff Recommendations

• Boards of trustees should be provided Boards of trustees should be provided flexibility to set student tuition and fees flexibility to set student tuition and fees contingent upon BOG approval of university contingent upon BOG approval of university plans and performance measures that plans and performance measures that continue access by disadvantaged and continue access by disadvantaged and place-bound populations.place-bound populations.

• The Department of Education should The Department of Education should examine the feasibility of procedures that examine the feasibility of procedures that would allow state financial aid programs to would allow state financial aid programs to adjust to university flexibility in adjust to university flexibility in establishing variable fee schedules such as establishing variable fee schedules such as block fees.block fees.

Financial Aid and Student Cost Financial Aid and Student Cost OptionsOptions

1.1. Require each university to allocateRequire each university to allocate ___ ___ percent of the revenue derived from fee percent of the revenue derived from fee increases to need based student aid in increases to need based student aid in order to maintain student access and order to maintain student access and control student debt.control student debt.

2.2. Require universities to implement Require universities to implement initiatives such as implementing the UF initiatives such as implementing the UF student tracking system that can reduce student tracking system that can reduce student costs.student costs.

3.3. Require performance measures for student Require performance measures for student access and graduation and development of access and graduation and development of a plan for containing student cost, rather a plan for containing student cost, rather than mandating specific initiatives.than mandating specific initiatives.

Staff RecommendationStaff Recommendation

Require performance measures for Require performance measures for student access and graduation and student access and graduation and development of a plan for containing development of a plan for containing student cost, rather than mandating student cost, rather than mandating specific initiatives.specific initiatives.

Public Education Capital Public Education Capital OutlayOutlay(PECO)(PECO)

• UF/FSU proposal – PECO funds provided UF/FSU proposal – PECO funds provided based on each university’s last 10-year based on each university’s last 10-year average PECO appropriationsaverage PECO appropriations

• Relevant facts:Relevant facts:– Changes current methodologyChanges current methodology– DOE has a new Advisory Council on DOE has a new Advisory Council on

Educational FacilitiesEducational Facilities– PECO funds are anticipated to drop PECO funds are anticipated to drop

drastically next year, then gradually drastically next year, then gradually increaseincrease

– Committing this level of PECO funds Committing this level of PECO funds will have a negative impact on the will have a negative impact on the amount available for community amount available for community colleges and public schoolscolleges and public schools

PECOPECO

Staff recommendationStaff recommendation::• Do not include a PECO commitment in Do not include a PECO commitment in

the contract at this time, since it the contract at this time, since it could have a negative impact on could have a negative impact on other institutions and delivery other institutions and delivery systems.systems.

• In the future, it may be appropriate In the future, it may be appropriate to take into consideration the to take into consideration the recommendations of DOE’s Advisory recommendations of DOE’s Advisory Council on Education Facilities, due Council on Education Facilities, due February 2004.February 2004.

Performance ExpectationsPerformance Expectations

• Federal Higher Education Act (HEA) Federal Higher Education Act (HEA) ReauthorizationReauthorization

• Florida Department of Education Florida Department of Education (DOE) Activities(DOE) Activities– Dr. Dorothy (Dottie) MinearDr. Dorothy (Dottie) Minear

• Student and Employer SatisfactionStudent and Employer Satisfaction– Ms. Kristina Goodwin (staff)Ms. Kristina Goodwin (staff)

Quality & Efficient ServicesQuality & Efficient Services

Student and Employer Student and Employer Satisfaction SurveysSatisfaction Surveys

Satisfaction SurveysSatisfaction Surveys

• Should the university contract Should the university contract address student and employer address student and employer satisfaction surveys?satisfaction surveys?

Satisfaction SurveysSatisfaction Surveys

• Southern Association of Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Accreditation and Schools (SACS) Accreditation

• Florida Education and Training Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program Placement Information Program (FETPIP) (FETPIP)

• National Student SurveysNational Student Surveys• Florida Universities’ Satisfaction Florida Universities’ Satisfaction

SurveysSurveys

National Student SurveysNational Student Surveys

NSSE – National Survey of Student EngagementNSSE – National Survey of Student Engagement

CSEQ – College Student Experiences CSEQ – College Student Experiences QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

CSXQ –College Student Expectations CSXQ –College Student Expectations QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

CIRP –CIRP – Cooperative Institutional Research Cooperative Institutional Research ProgramProgram

SSI – Student Satisfaction InventorySSI – Student Satisfaction Inventory

Florida UniversitiesFlorida Universities

• All 5 institutions conduct student and employer All 5 institutions conduct student and employer satisfaction surveyssatisfaction surveys

Student Satisfaction SurveyStudent Satisfaction Survey• All have participated in at least one national All have participated in at least one national

student survey. student survey. • All conduct an institutional graduating student All conduct an institutional graduating student

surveysurvey• Frequency of the surveys varyFrequency of the surveys vary

Employer Satisfaction SurveyEmployer Satisfaction Survey • Frequency varies among institutions. Frequency varies among institutions. • Conducted at the institution OR department Conducted at the institution OR department

level. level.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSTAFF RECOMMENDATION

• The contract should ensure that The contract should ensure that sufficient feedback is being sufficient feedback is being received from students and received from students and employers to determine employers to determine institutional quality. institutional quality.

Performance ExpectationsPerformance Expectations

• Options for Contract SpecificationsOptions for Contract Specifications– Create specific measures and Create specific measures and

standards to be included in every standards to be included in every university’s contractuniversity’s contract

– Specify that the BOG and universities Specify that the BOG and universities should negotiate measures and should negotiate measures and standards to meet state goalsstandards to meet state goals

– Identify key issues or objectives for Identify key issues or objectives for which measures and standards which measures and standards should be developedshould be developed

– Identify performance commitments, Identify performance commitments, in addition to measurable standardsin addition to measurable standards

Performance ExpectationsPerformance Expectations

Staff recommendationsStaff recommendations::

The report should include a list of The report should include a list of high priority issues for which high priority issues for which commitments and/or measures and commitments and/or measures and standards should be developed for standards should be developed for inclusion in the contract.inclusion in the contract.

Institutional-specific measures Institutional-specific measures should also be considered during should also be considered during contract negotiations.contract negotiations.

Incentives and PenaltiesIncentives and Penalties

• Proviso language specified that the Proviso language specified that the study was to include “penalties, if study was to include “penalties, if any, for failure to comply with the any, for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of each terms and conditions of each contract.”contract.”

• Draft contract contains strong linkage Draft contract contains strong linkage between tuition flexibility and between tuition flexibility and performance measures (see hand-out)performance measures (see hand-out)

Incentives and PenaltiesIncentives and Penalties

Staff RecommendationStaff Recommendation::• Prior to contract negotiations, BOG Prior to contract negotiations, BOG

shall adopt rules or guidelines that shall adopt rules or guidelines that specify:specify:– Direct linkage between Direct linkage between

performance and tuition performance and tuition flexibilityflexibility

– Requirements for improving Requirements for improving performanceperformance

Data CollectionData Collection

Legislative DirectionLegislative Direction

• Concerns raisedConcerns raised• Directed to look at data collection Directed to look at data collection

methodsmethods– How will data be collected “to How will data be collected “to

demonstrate compliance with the demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions of each terms and conditions of each contract?”contract?”

New Software SystemsNew Software Systems

• July 1, 2003 – five have moved off of July 1, 2003 – five have moved off of the State Comptroller’s system the State Comptroller’s system

• July 1, 2004 – six will move off of July 1, 2004 – six will move off of the State Comptroller’s system the State Comptroller’s system

• Universities will move off the Universities will move off the State’s payroll 6 months laterState’s payroll 6 months later

• Universities may change other Universities may change other systems (i.e. student, human systems (i.e. student, human resources)resources)

Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance

• Continued qualityContinued quality– DOE Data DictionaryDOE Data Dictionary

• Data reportingData reporting– Has not changedHas not changed

• Data checksData checks– By requesting agency By requesting agency

SummarySummary

At this time, there are no problems At this time, there are no problems Institutions are working together and Institutions are working together and

with the DOE to maintain the same level with the DOE to maintain the same level and quality of data reported.and quality of data reported.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSTAFF RECOMMENDATION

• There appears to be no need to include There appears to be no need to include data collection and reporting methods data collection and reporting methods in the contract. in the contract.

• However, the proviso directed CEPRI to However, the proviso directed CEPRI to investigate data collection and reporting investigate data collection and reporting methods. This information should be methods. This information should be included in the final report. included in the final report.