Advancing the
University
Academic Plan
Report to Faculty Councils: Fall 2013
Rhonda Lenton, Provost & Vice President Academic and
1
Gary Brewer, Vice President Finance & Administration
Outline
1) External Context
2) Successes
3) Challenges
 (VPFA) York University Budget
4) Moving the University Academic Plan Forward
5) Academic and Administrative Prioritization
2
1. External: Ontario Post-secondary Education
Continuing
demand for
higher
education
Increasing
Higher Education costs &
scrutiny of tuition fees
Emphasis on
differentiation,
innovation &
productivity
Strategic
Mandate
Discussions
3
Growth in Student Demand for
Baccalaureate Education: 2009 - 2025
David Trick, Tyndale Presentation, March 19, 2013
4
Per-student revenues compared to perstudent costs
200
190
180
Per-student
costs (~4-5%)
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
David Trick, Tyndale Presentation, March 19, 2013
5
CPI inflation
(2%)
Per-student
revenue
(~1-2%)
Risks to Higher Education
Accessibility
Risks
Sustainability
Educational quality e.g.,
pitting teaching vs research
6
Government Responses
Outcomes-Based Funding Approach
Credit Transfer
Technology Enhanced Learning
Productivity and Innovation Fund
Differentiation
7
Competitor Responses
Alternate sources of revenue
Strategic Enrolment Management
Improved accountability
Public Relations & Communications
Exploiting technology
Enhancing innovation
Diversifying complement
Budget cuts
Budget efficiency measures
8
2. How Are We Doing?
Numerous Successes on Priorities
Academic Quality
Student Success
Community Engagement
 Enhancing Teaching and Learning e.g., Teaching Commons,
AIF
 Research Intensification e.g., SRP,
CRC
 Strengthening Interdisciplinarity and Comprehensiveness
e.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
9
GPA of Entering Undergraduates 2006/07 to
2012/13
Grade Distribution of Full-time Year 1 Secondary School Registrants
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
70-74%
2006/07
2010/11
10
75-79%
80-84%
2007/08
2012/13
85-89%
90-94%
2008/09
2012/13
Also continue to strengthen GPA: in 70-74% category
over time, although not as strong in 85% - 94% last year.
Source: OIRA
GE 95%
2009/10
Cumulative Change in Tenure Stream Faculty
Complement: 2002-03 to 2013-14 (not including Librarians)
Significant complement recovery facilitated by strategic funds
11
Source: Office of VPA&P
3. Challenges We Face
Reputation
Enrolment
Uncertainty
regarding MTCU
directions
Ability to
continue to
advance UAP
12
Financial: gap
between
revenue and
expenditure is
unsustainable
Financial Gap
Annual
Budget Cuts
MTCU
Efficiency
Measures
2013-14
Expenditures
exceed
revenues
Financial
downturn
2008
New Tuition
Fee
Framework
Budget Presentation
13
Budget (VPFA)
14
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).
15
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
Revenue/Expense Increase – 2006/07 to 2015/16
$350
Other
$300
$250
Institutional
$200
Facilities/Capital/Energy
Management
Student Financial Support
$100
Academic
$50
Compensation
($100)
($150)
16
Cumulative Total of Annual Budget Cuts:
$483.2 M
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
6
20
15
-1
5
20
14
-1
4
20
13
-1
3
20
12
-1
2
20
11
-1
1
20
10
-1
0
20
09
-1
9
20
08
-0
8
20
07
-0
($50)
7
$0
20
06
-0
$ millions
$150
Budget Cuts
Revenue Increase
Budget Plan 2012-2016 (Approved June 2012)
(in $millions)
Budget Plan 2012-2016
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
Revenue
752.5
766.7
782.1
801.2
Expenditures
749.3
774.5
788.2
793.9
Annual Surplus/(Deficit)
3.2
(7.8)
(6.1)
7.3
Carryforward Surplus/(Deficit)
0.2
3.4
(4.4)
(10.5)
Cumulative Surplus/(Deficit)
3.4
(4.4)
(10.5)
(3.2)
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
Budget Cut
17
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
3.25%
Pension Valuation –
Going Concern and Solvency Deficits
($ millions)
Going Concern
Deficiency
Solvency
Deficiency
2007
$44.1
$27.8
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
* Preliminary numbers
Status
Filed in 2008
*Valuation assumptions still being finalized.
Operating budget has incorporated
special pension payments
as 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.
18
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
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)
19
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
REVENUE Changes – from June 2012 Plan
$ million
Enrolment Growth
Domestic
Reductions from June 2012: 400 to 700 FFTEs)
International
June 2012 Plan growth: ( +250 FFTEs in 2013/14 onwards)
Additional growth: ( +100 FFTEs in 2013/14 onwards)
Fee Increases
Domestic - U/G
International
- Regular fee Increase
- Municipal tax recovery increase
- "Head tax" recovery increase
Government Grant Adjustments
Policy Levers
International Enrolment Taxes
Other
Interest Income
Total Revenue Change - increase/(decrease)
20
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
(5.00)
(7.00)
(6.00)
(4.00)
In Plan
1.50
4.00
1.50
In Plan
1.50
In Plan
1.50
(3.70)
In Plan
0.26
0.90
(2.54)
(7.70)
In Plan
0.28
1.80
(5.62)
(11.70)
In Plan
0.30
2.70
(8.70)
(3.70)
2.50
0.32
3.60
2.72
(2.80)
(1.16)
(3.96)
(5.50)
(2.08)
(7.58)
(5.50)
(3.00)
(8.50)
(5.50)
(3.92)
(9.42)
(1.00)
(1.00)
(2.00)
(2.00)
(3.00)
(3.00)
(3.00)
(3.00)
(11.00)
(20.70)
(24.70)
(8.20)
EXPENSE Changes – from June 2012 Plan
$ million
Academic Investments
2013-14
VPA/P - domestic growth impact (60% share)
(3.00)
VPA/P - International Fee/growth increase share (72% share)
1.08
Tuition-set-aside - Student support
In Plan
Faculty of Science/Engineering- Budget Rebasing
2.50
0.58
Compensation/Benefit
Compensation
In plan
Employee Benefit Cost Inflation
3.00
Pension Special Payments
In Plan
3.00
Strategic Investments
Marketing Campaign
Restructuring Fund
3.00
Copyright Office
0.35
Energy - energy mgt prgm/reduced cost
(1.80)
1.55
Total Expenditure Change - increase/(decrease)
21
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
5.13
2014-15
(4.20)
1.08
In Plan
2.50
(0.62)
2015-16
(3.60)
1.08
In Plan
2.50
(0.02)
2016-17
(2.40)
5.76
0.80
2.50
6.66
(2.00)
2.00
In Plan
-
(5.00)
In Plan
(5.00)
10.00
In Plan
10.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
(1.80)
(0.95)
0.35
(1.80)
(0.95)
0.35
(1.80)
(0.95)
(1.57)
(5.97)
15.71
Budget Plan 2013-2017 – Assuming ATB Cuts
(to balance)
(in $millions)
2013-14
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2012 Plan
Revenue Changes (June 2013)
Expenditure Changes (June 2013)
Revised Annual Surplus/( Deficit) - before cut adjustments
Budget Cuts:
2013-14 increase by 3%
2014-15 increase by 2%
2015-16 increase by 0.5%
2016-17 No Cut
Total Adjustment to Budget Cuts
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2013 Plan
Prior Year Carryforward
Revised Cumulative Surplus (Deficit)
Budget Cuts
22
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
(7.8)
(6.2)
7.3
7.3
(11.0)
(20.7)
(24.7)
(8.2)
5.1
(1.6)
(6.0)
15.7
(23.9)
(25.3)
(11.4)
(16.6)
12.6
12.6
8.4
12.6
8.4
2.1
12.6
8.4
2.1
-
12.6
21.0
23.1
23.1
(11.3)
(4.3)
11.7
6.5
3.4
(7.9)
(12.2)
(0.5)
(7.9)
(12.2)
(0.5)
6.0
6.50%
5.50%
4.00%
0.00%
EXPENSE Changes – additional targeted cuts
• 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.
Targeted Expense Reductions
Defer Other Post Employ't Benefit Contributions
Defer Additional Sinking Fund Contributions
Reduce Building Maintenance Funding (4 years)
Reduce Energy Management program base funding
Reduce Insurance funding provision
23
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
2013-14
7.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
0.50
16.50
2014-15
7.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
0.50
16.50
2015-16
7.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
0.50
16.50
2016-17
7.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
0.50
16.50
Budget Plan 2013-2017 –
(applying targeted
expense reductions)
2013-14
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2012 Plan
Revenue Changes (June 2013)
Expenditure Changes (June 2013)
Revised Annual Surplus/( Deficit) - before targeted cuts
Additional Targeted Cuts (June 2013)
Budget Cuts:
2013-14 maintain 3.5%
2014-15 maintain 3.5%
2015-16 maintain 3.5%
2016-17 Cut of 2%
Total Adjustment to Budget Cuts
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) - June 2013 Plan
Prior Year Carryforward
Revised Cumulative Surplus (Deficit)
Budget Cuts
24
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
(7.8)
(6.2)
7.3
7.3
(11.0)
(20.7)
(24.7)
(8.2)
5.1
(1.6)
(6.0)
15.7
(23.9)
(25.3)
(11.4)
(16.6)
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
8.4
(7.4)
(8.8)
5.1
8.3
3.4
(4.0)
(12.8)
(7.7)
(4.0)
(12.8)
(7.7)
0.6
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
2.00%
Divisional Budget Summary
Division
Actual
2011/12
Budget
2012/13
Draft Year-End
2012/13 Actuals
Comments
(in $millions)
President's Division
1.1
0.9
1.4
Positive to Plan
VP Advancement
1.7
1.3
2.3
Positive to Plan
VP Research
3.0
2.3
3.6
Strong Results in ORU's
VP Finance & Administration
9.0
5.6
10.7
Positive to Plan
Education
9.3
6.6
8.2
Positive to Plan
Environmental Studies
1.6
1.1
1.2
On Plan
Fine Arts
-4.4
-7.9
-6.5
Positive to Plan
Glendon
Slightly Negative to Plan
VP Academic
Faculty
-3.7
-4.3
-4.6
Graduate Studies
4.0
4.3
4.4
On Plan
Health
3.7
1.5
3.5
Exceeded Enrolment Targets
-14.7
-23.0
-20.2
0.8
0.0
0.4
Osgoode Hall Law School
-3.0
-1.9
-0.4
Schulich School of Business
-7.5
-7.6
-10.2
Negative to Plan
Science/ Engineering
-3.5
-8.3
-6.2
Positive to Plan
YUELI
7.6
9.5
9.4
On Plan
VPA&P
16.9
12.6
12.2
On Plan
5.1
12.1
2.6
-14.9
6.2
-2.5
Positive to Plan
Liberal Arts & Professional Studies
Libraries
AVP Students
VPA Total
25
Office of the Vice President Finance and Administration
Positive to Plan
On Plan
PDP Results Positive to Plan
Positive to Plan
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
26
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
27
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”
28
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
29
Summary of Major Initiatives
May 13
Sept
13
Jan 14
May 14
Sept 14
Jan
15
May
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
Expand PRASE to Academic &
Administrative Prioritization
initiative Year 1 – Data Collection
- Report due end of June
SHARP Transition Period 2015 –
2018
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
Employee Engagement Response
30
Potential for
second survey
Balanced
budget
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.
31
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
32
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
33
AAP: Principles
 Advancing York’s mission and University Academic Plan
 Transparent
 Collegial
 Evidence-based
34
Typical Criteria used to Evaluate
Criteria
History 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
35
service? for efficiencies? for collaboration?
Weight
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
36
Critical Path for AAP in 2013 - 2014
June – October 2013
Develop AAP plan
including:
• Community
consultation and
communication
strategy
• Program lists
• Criteria and
templates
• Data for templates
37
November 2013 – February 2014
Distribute templates
Programs complete
and submit templates
Task Forces
established and
trained
March – June 2014
Task Forces analyse
submissions and
prepare reports
Discussion
• Questions, initial thoughts…
For more details: See the May 2013 report of the VicePresidents to Senate:
http://www.yorku.ca/secretariat/senate/agenda/20122013/documents/2013-May/20130523Presentation.pdf
38
Appendix
39
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
40
Successes: Research Intensification
Strategic Priorities:
•
•
•
•
•
Enhanced research reputation
Strategic Research Plan and emerging opportunities
Enhanced ORUs
Outreach and partnerships locally and internationally
Graduate students and program profile
Successes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
41
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
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
42
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
43
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
44