Chemeketa Community
College
Regional Opportunities &
Challenges
Demographics
Demographic trends
Population is forecasted to grow 1.4% annually through 2040 –
outpacing the state’s growth rate by more than 10%.
Polk County’s population will nearly double over that time
period and Yamhill County’s will grow by nearly 70%.
Yamhill:
70%
Marion:
48.1%
Polk:
108%
State:
50%
Demographic trends
DISTRICT POPULATION WILL DIVERSIFY
Population growth 1990-2006 –
246%
39%
Total
Hispanic
Demographic trends
WORKFORCE POPULATION WILL DIVERSIFY
33%
Ages
Under 5
5 to 19
20 to 64
65+
25%
18%
2%
Mid-Willamette Hispanic Population
Workforce
Growth & Replacement by Industry
2006-2016
Transportation and Utilities
Information
Wholesale Trade
Other Services
Financial Activities
Construction
Manufacturing
Professional and Business Services
Natural Resources and Mining
Leisure and Hospitality
Retail Trade
Education and Health Services
Government
Growth Openings
Replacement Openings
District wage projections
FUTURE WAGE EARNING
51%of regional job
openings through
2016 will be “low
wage”
(less than $30,000
per year)
The highest wages
in the region are
offered by the single
largest job sector:
Government
Educational Pipeline
Demographic trends
ADULT
LITERACY
NEEDS
11-16% of the population
age 18-24 do not have a
HS degree
13.7-21.3% of the population over
25 do not have a HS degree
Marion County ranks dead last among Oregon
counties on the percent of 3rd graders who
achieve established reading levels
Second to last in math achievement
Percent of Oregon Residents with No High
School Diploma By Age and Race/Ethnicity, 2006
White
Hispanic
African-American
47.8
44.9
Native American
Asian
44.7
43.9
31.0
22.9
17.5
18.418.5
8.8
8.2
Age 25-34
11.111.9
6.8
Age 35-44
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 ACS PUMS
8.3
6.4
12.7
10.1
3.2
Age 45-54
6.1
Age 55-64
High School Drop Out Rates
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
Oregon
Mid-Willamette Region
5.0%
0.0%
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Adults Age 18-64 Who Speak English
Poorly or Not at All, 2006
13.3
10
8
5.6
6
4.7
4
2
0.2
0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS
College-Going Rates—First-Time Freshmen
Directly Out of High School as a Percent of
Recent High School Graduates, 2004
68.8
75
55.5
25
0
Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Opportunity (2004 data update 02-06-07)
42.6
45.5
50
Financial Resources
Budget Summary 0304 to 0910
Budget
Year
Size of Gap
Total General Fund
Budget
0304
$9.0 Million
$53 Million
0405
$7.8 Million
$53 Million
0506
$5.4 Million
$54 Million
0607
$3.1 Million
$56 Million
0708
$1.0 Million
$58 Million
0809
< $50,000
$62 Million
0910
$5.6 Million
$63 Million
General Fund FTE Changes 0304 to 0910
Year
Total
0203 and 0304
0405
0506
0607
0708
0809
0910
(26.43)
(6.39)
(19.06)
6.21
10.69
7.75
(12.29)
Total
(42.88)
Tuition Rate plus Per Credit Fees
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1997-98 1998-99
Universal & SS Fee
Tuition Rate
19992000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
2000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
6.50
8.00
35
36
36
38
39
43
50
56
58
58
58
61
70
Ending Fund Balance
12,000,000
11,000,000
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1999-2000
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2004-05
6,004,718
Audit
Budget 5,443,768
2003-04
5,516,726
7,396,696
1,086,728
1,975,940
2005-06
2006-07
6,173,126
2,042,373
3,446,295
2007-08
6,836,756
3,831,733
4,454,584
Budget Building Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unit planning
Strategic planning
Develop budget assumptions
Review potential investments
Review potential cost reductions
Develop balanced budget
Budget Principles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive mission
Students and student success priority
Quality and cost-effective instruction
Minimize loss of access
Serve throughout our geography
Create a healthy future
Budget Principles
• Increase flexibility and responsiveness
• Think differently about how to deliver instruction
and services
• Seek creative funding options
• Balance budget with focused reductions and
strategic investments
• Transparent and frequent communication
Considerations for Cost Reduction
•
•
•
•
Is it legally mandated?
How many students are served?
What is the cost relative to other College areas?
Has this area been the prior subject of review?
Considerations for Cost Reduction
• Could outcomes be met in another way?
• Considering College mission and goals, among
our choices, which investments have the
greatest impact and which cost reductions have
the least impact?
Budget Strategies
• Restructure selected academic programs based
on cost and enrollment status
• Administrative reorganization
• Restructure and reduce funding to selected
college and student support services
• Make use of vacancy reductions where possible
• Shift resources to meeting most critical
immediate and strategic needs
Other Considerations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legislative process
Dynamic economic environment
Collective bargaining
Our position relative to other colleges
Biennial budget
Long-term trends
Request to Employees
• Seek to understand and contribute ideas
• Help promote effective communication and
address rumors
• Find ways to work with uncertainty
• Focus on service to students
• Contribute to long-term strategies for financial
sustainability
National Context:
Economic Challenges for
Higher Education
The Project on the Future of Higher Education
Dealing with the Future Now:
Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a
Climate of Restricted Resources
Alan E. Guskin
Director, Project on the Future of Higher Education
Distinguished University Professor
University President Emeritus
Antioch University
State of Higher Education and
the Future
Reduced
Financial
Support
Demographic
Shifts
External
Accountability
Demands
New Institutional Forms
to Respond to
Changing Societal
Needs & Pressures
New Technology
and Demands for
Use
Mistrust of
Professionals
New Student
Learning Needs
•
Facing Economic Reality
•
“...states' fiscal problems are only partly due to the cyclical
downturn in the economy. Two long-standing structural
problems--an eroding tax base and the explosion in health
care costs--are the major causes ... the current problem is
long-run and structural.”
Ray Scheppach, Executive Director
National Governors Association, 2003
• “The pattern from the 1990s suggests that reductions in
higher education appropriations are implemented during an
economic downturn and then made permanent by a failure to
raise appropriations substantially during the subsequent
economic recovery.”
The Brookings Institution, 2003
Findings from a Recent Study by The
National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education
• States, and higher education in particular, are likely to
face very tight budget conditions for the next decade.
• All but a handful of states will find it impossible to
maintain current levels of public services within their
existing tax structure.
• Just to maintain current services, state spending for
higher education would have to increase faster than
state spending in other areas.
From “State Shortfalls Projected Throughout the Decade: Higher Ed Budgets Likely to Feel Continued Squeeze,”
by Dennis Jones in Policy Alert, The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, February, 2003
Educational Assumptions in “Muddling
Through” As a Response to Economic
Challenges
• Present Educational Delivery System (faculty teaching
students in classes over set period of time) is effective
and there is no viable alternative to assure quality
teaching and learning.
Increasing diversity of students and recognition of
diverse student learning modes. (But no need to change
how students are taught.)
• Technology can augment faculty teaching, should never
replace it.
Educational Assumptions in “Muddling
Through” As a Response to Economic
Challenges
• Present assessment system is OK; learning outcomes
are very difficult to quantify as well as meet need for
transferability
• Limited resources and increasing expenses can be
handled by non-personnel cuts in administrative areas
and hiring of inexpensive faculty (P/T; F/T without
tenure)
• Recognition that there are not enough fiscal resources in
non-academic areas to avoid cuts in academic area
Problems with “Muddling Through”
Strategy Over Time
• Increases in fund raising cannot be annually ratcheted
up—fund raising will not offset major continuing
reductions in real dollar resources
• Tuition levels cannot be significantly increased annually
without changing nature of student body
• Required increases in technology add significant costs
to budget without any savings
• Many budget reductions are one-time only or cannot be
continually decreased without devastating results:
Problems with “Muddling Through”
Strategy Over Time
• Quality of Faculty and staff work-lives will be undermined
• Student Learning will deteriorate—decreasing availability
of courses needed; increasing class size; decreasing
access to faculty; decreasing quality of learning
environment.
• Continuing incremental changes may create an
institution that we do not want to be part of.
Transition from Muddling Through to
Transforming Institution
Transition requires a shift in thinking:
 Need to challenge basic assumptions about how student
learning can occur
 Need to refocus from emphasis on faculty teaching to
emphasis on student learning
 Need to re-conceptualize institutional productivity--from
faculty productivity to student learning productivity
Transition from Muddling Through to
Transforming Institution
• To make such a transition, campus members must have
a level of pain or “anticipatory pain” that induces them to
realize that there is an urgency to undertake
fundamental change.
• Campus members must believe that present fiscal
realities are long term (5-10 years) not short term (1-2
years)
New Educational Assumptions for
Transition to Transformed Institution
• Student learning can occur in many different ways inside
and outside the classroom
• Need to develop cost effective quality learning options
based on new instructional strategies
• Technology can be effectively used in core instruction
while assuring quality and reducing cost per student
• Assessment of student learning outcomes is key to
developing new instructional and learning strategies
while maintaining academic integrity with limited
resources
New Educational Assumptions for
Transition to Transformed Institution
• Faculty roles must change in order to maintain
reasonable workloads and quality of work-life within
academic standards
• There will be fewer faculty
• Digital resources and new library roles can support
development and implementation of alternative teaching
and learning strategies.
• New organizational systems are needed to support a
changed educational delivery system
Six Reasons that Organization
Changes Fail
1. Insufficient integration into core goals
2. Lack of comprehensive / accepted assessment
framework to measure success
3. Inability to translate vision for change into language/
action that can be embraced
4. Failure to establish accountability process to ensure
that non-compliance is met with real consequences
Williams, Damon A., Berger, J.B., McClendon, S.A. Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and
Change in Postsecondary Institutions. American Association of Colleges and Universities. 2005
Six Reasons that Organization
Changes Fail
5. Low levels of meaningful / consistent support from
senior institutional leaders throughout the change
process
6. Resistance to allocating sufficient resources to ensure
that vision for change is driven deep into organizational
culture
Williams, Damon A., Berger, J.B., McClendon, S.A. Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and
Change in Postsecondary Institutions. American Association of Colleges and Universities. 2005
So What? Now What?