Core Component 2B:
The organization’s
resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining
and strengthening their quality in the future.
University resources include our students, faculty, staff, alumni and other supporters, business and educational partners, and the employers of our graduates and students. St. Cloud State University is fortunate to have top-quality human resources as well as multiple sources of financial support—and we have worked hard to get and maintain these resources. In the following pages, we will report on the financial, human, and physical resources of the university.
Financial Resources
Funding for St. Cloud State University comes from state allocation, tuition and student fees, and other sources. During the past several years, the percentage of funding from the state in the form of allocation has declined. The sources of revenue for fiscal years 04 through 06 are as follows:
| Revenue (in millions): | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| FY 04 | FY 05 | FY 06 | |
| Appropriation | $54.2 | $53.3 | $56.6 |
| Tuition and fees | $55.8 | $62.6 | $65.0 |
| Federal Grants | $10.0 | $11.0 | $10.2 |
| Other | $10.4 | $10.3 | $11.4 |
| Total | $130.4 | $137.2 | $143.2 |
| (Annual Financial Report available in the Resource Room) | |||
The general fund for the academic and administrative support portion of the university is funded by about 39 percent state appropriation, 45 percent tuition and fees, and the balance by the St. Cloud State University Foundation, grants and contracts, and other support. Budget Updates provide additional information on these resources, as well as basic allocations of funds for education, maintenance, buildings, and so on. (See audited financial statements that illustrate the financial condition and practices of the university in the Resource Room). Revenues projected for the university in fiscal year 2007 are $128.5 million, of which $51 million comes from appropriations, $74 million from tuition, and the remainder from other sources.
St. Cloud State University works hard to make the best use of limited resources. As noted below, while our tuition is higher, our revenue per FTE student is less than that of many comparable institutions.
| Revenue Sources per FTE Student (2004) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY 05 | Tuition/ Fees |
State Allocation |
Other | Total |
| SCSU | $4,164 | $3,917 | $1,898 | $9,979 |
| Peers | $3,955 | $5,400 | $3,242 | $12,597 |
(We used IPEDS data for 2004 because
there is an apparent error in the 2005 data on revenue sources. That
data are presented in percentages, and the percentage for the designated
peer group does not equal 100 percent.) |
||||
Because we value academic and student needs, we spend a larger percentage of our revenue on direct instructional cost than the other universities in the MnSCU system, as indicated in MnSCU cost study data: St. Cloud State University spends $4283 per FYE on direct instruction compared to $4031 per FYE for all universities. (MnSCU uses FYE [full-year equivalent], compared to FTE [full-time equivalent] used in IPEDS data.) A key factor contributing to this difference is the fact that a larger percentage of our faculty members are full-time, in support of the university’s commitment to educational quality. However, our instructional expenses and total expenditures per FTE are lower than many comprehensive regional universities of comparable size.
| Expenditures per FTE (FY 05) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction | Academic Support |
Institutional Support |
Student Services |
Total | |
| SCSU | $4759 | $1214 | $967 | $1252 | $9624 |
| Peers | $5495 | $1098 | $1112 | $928 | $11650 |
| (See IPEDS data. Note: “Instruction” includes research and public service.) | |||||
Finding ways to generate additional revenue is both a challenge and an opportunity facing the university. Some of our efforts in this direction will be discussed below.
The second major area of university funding is the revenue fund. This program operates the student union, residence halls, the student recreation center, and financially related but independent entities entirely supported by student fees and sale of services and goods. The 3,000 residence hall beds, 160,000-gross-square-foot Atwood Memorial Center, and the 40,000-gross-square-foot Recreation Center connected to the domed athletic field are well maintained and prudently financed, as evidenced by the audited financial statement for the revenue fund, which also is available in the Resource Room.
St. Cloud State University Foundation
St. Cloud State University had a successful first comprehensive campaign from 1996-2001, and reached its $21 million goal. Planning for a future campaign centers on the St. Cloud State University Foundation’s strategic plan, developed in consultation with university leadership around university priorities. This plan was informed by the St. Cloud State University Strategic Plan, reviewed by the president and vice presidents, and approved by the Foundation Board in February 2006. With Foundation support, St. Cloud State University should be able to deliver higher quality education to students and attract and retain highly qualified faculty. (Copy of this plan is available in the Resource Room.)
St. Cloud State University Endowment
St. Cloud State University completed its first capital campaign in 2001. The graph below shows the fundraising totals from the last year of the campaign.
The decrease in recent fundraising activity was due to staff turnover at the end of the campaign. For most of fiscal year 2006, only two staff members with fundraising duties, the vice president and associate vice president, were on board. The university has now moved to a new model of fundraising, one in which development staff members are assigned to the collegiate units, but report to the St. Cloud State University Foundation. As of September 2006, the unit is staffed with five development directors in addition to the vice president and associate vice president. With staff in place, we are now engaged in the planning stages for a university-wide comprehensive fundraising campaign. Grenzebach Glier and Associates has been engaged to complete a campaign feasibility study, and has begun an internal assessment of the processes and donor base. The external phase of a feasibility study has been postponed until Fall 2007, when the new university president is in place; meanwhile, internal planning will continue.
The Foundation’s assets have increased gradually during this period and encompass real estate, including the multipurpose Husky Stadium and Campus Recreation Center, which will be gifted to the university when the bonds are retired, as well as several parcels elsewhere in Minnesota; the endowment, valued at $16.5 million as of June 30, 2006; and other cash and investments. More than 90% of the Foundation’s annual fundraising gifts are designated by donors for specific purposes. Scholarship endowments are the most common donor designation.
Grants and Contracts
The university also seeks external funding through grants and contracts. The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) assists faculty with research and creative activity, helping them find funding sources, assisting with applications and budgets, and administering funded projects. The office works directly with external agencies to negotiate contracts and cultivate partnerships. The office also hosts grant-writing workshops for interested faculty and provides focused workshops for colleges, departments, and other groups. It administers internal grant competitions, such as the Faculty Improvement Grants program, supports the Institutional Review Board and coordinates the Student Research Colloquium. Student Research grants totaling $35,000 were allocated annually beginning in 2005. Approximately $315,000 is invested by the university annually in faculty research and creative activities.
The university has been successful in obtaining federal grants and Minnesota Jobs Skills Partnership (MJSP) grants for major program development. The nursing program was started with two grants from the U.S. Government, and expansion of our Medical Technology program has received funding from MJSP. As the graph below indicates, grant and contract funding can vary significantly from year to year. For example, in 2004, the College of Education received a five million dollar Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant, raising our total annual income. While we seek to increase this source of revenue, we are not always as successful as we would like.
Staff
The university operates with a comparatively small staff, comprised of dedicated individuals. In 2002, NCHEMS consultants reported that St. Cloud State University was very lean when it came to staffing. Using fall 1999 IPEDS data, NCHEMS reported that St. Cloud State University had the fewest administrators per FTE students and close to the fewest staff per FTE students in other categories, compared to peer institutions (NCHEMS IPEDS data, 1999-2000). We have reviewed this situation and added staff in key areas such as student services and public safety, and have moved from a total of 97 in fiscal year 2003 to 106 in fiscal year 2006. Recent IPEDS data confirms that St. Cloud State University staffing levels are still low:
| Full-Time Equivalent Staff, Fall 2005 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction/ Research/ Public service | FTE Student/ FTE staff Ratio | Exec/ Admin/ Mgr | FTE Student/ FTE staff Ratio | Other Prof | FTE Student/ FTE staff Ratio | Non-Prof | FTE Student FTE staff Ratio | |
| SCSU | 571 | 24:1 | 34 | 406:1 | 356 | 39:1 | 369 | 37.5:1 |
| Peers | 830 | 13.5:1 | 98 | 114:1 | 446 | 25:1 | 580 | 19:1 |
| (See IPEDS data) | ||||||||
Further increases in staffing levels may reduce stress among employees and provide better service to students.
Full-Time Faculty
Forty-one percent of tenured and tenure track faculty are women, and 20 percent are members of minority groups. St. Cloud State University has achieved an increase in underrepresented faculty despite the homogeneous nature of the surrounding community. The tables below show the tenure status of the full-time and tenured/tenure track faculty and the average salary of faculty in the various ranks compared to MnSCU and peer averages.
| Status of Full-Time Faculty, 2003-2006 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |
| Tenured | 354 | 363 | 379 | 397 |
| Probationary | 179 | 147 | 147 | 154 |
| Fixed-Term | 82 | 72 | 75 | 71 |
| Total | 615 | 582 | 601 | 622 |
| (See OIE data in Resource Room) | ||||
| Average Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2005-2006 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Profs | Assoc Profs | Asst Profs | Instructor | |
| SCSU | $63,707 | $75,823 | $59,910 | $54,069 | $42,143 |
| MnSCU | $63,408 | $76,612 | $61,251 | $54,041 | $38,934 |
| Peers | $64,253 | $82,746 | $65,452 | $54,714 | $42,585 |
| (See IPEDS and MnSCU data in Resource Room) | |||||
Professional Development
Faculty and staff are encouraged to keep current in their fields and pursue professional development. Probationary and tenured faculty submit professional development plans to their deans each year (except for full professors, who submit plans every four years). By contract, every member of the faculty is allocated funds for professional development. (See Core Component 4A)
Anticipated Retirements
Given the growth in university enrollments that began in the 1960’s, and the accompanying increase in faculty hiring, the past few years have seen a fairly high number of faculty retirements. For example, since 2003, 50 faculty members have retired. The university expects a large number of additional retirements in the near term, especially given that faculty are offered incentives to retire early or participate in a phased retirement program. Turnover among the faculty brings fresh ideas, but also costs the university when experienced leaders depart. In addition, there is strong competition for candidates in some disciplines, making it difficult to fill some positions.
Process for Allocating Faculty Positions
Program expansions and new academic program initiatives emerge from the university’s strategic plan. With this goal in mind, the creation of new positions in the faculty and academic support staff is discussed in depth by the Provost and the deans. In 2005-2006, a new method based on data and other considerations for allocating positions was adopted. Requests to fill positions come from the departments to the deans and then the Provost. Since the adoption of this process and the use of the “Request to Hire Faculty Position” form, requests are more comparable and based on data and rationales, and the allocation of positions has become more objective and fair.
The recent strengthening of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness should lead to improvements in data collection and dissemination that will increase the availability and reliability of data needed to support faculty requests and enable the process to be completed more quickly. We expect to continue the trend of reviewing position requests in light of which ones have the greatest potential for the overall needs of the university, rather than basing decisions on historical staffing levels and trying to replace the expertise of a person who has left.
| Student – Faculty Ratio | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
28:1 |
28:1 |
27:1 |
27:1 |
(See OIE data in Resource Room. Note: MnSCU uses FYE—full year equivalent—in determining enrollment numbers, thus including summer enrollment. Other institutions and IPEDS use FTE—full-time equivalents—which do not include summer enrollments. As a result, our student-faculty ratio looks higher than if it were expressed in terms of FTE. In addition, faculty reassigned time is subtracted from this calculation, again causing the ratio to be higher than it otherwise would.)
Communicating Budget Decisions
St. Cloud State University is working on improving its process for communicating how budget decisions are made. To start, a more collaborative process was implemented in fiscal years 2004-2005 to allocate the positive budget balance, with a standard form requesting how the initiatives fit into the strategic plan. For the 2008-2010 biennium, the university has created an open process to anticipate budgetary assumptions, develop a new budgeting model, and connect budget to planning and performance.
In the following section, we look at how resources support our institution, considering the university’s resource base in six ways:
- How dialogue about budgetary concerns takes place
- How supply and equipment budgets are allocated
- How capital projects are funded
- How the university maintains its fiscal strength and reserves
- Future directions
Active Dialogue about Resources: Lines of Communication
Students are full participants in determining available resources for certain functions. They have strong input on determining the size of the technology fee and in determining how the funds from this fee are allocated. The student government has a well-established process for distributing funds to student organizations. The university administration informs student government of proposed increases in tuition and various other fees, and explains how the funds will be used. The student government must submit in writing a statement that this consultation has taken place before the MnSCU Board of Trustees will approve any increases.
The staff is actively engaged in resource discussion to assure adequate support for the university. A government relations expert is shared with the Office of the Chancellor to advance a legislative agenda beneficial to the university and the system for both capital improvement funds and operating funds. This person also assists with the advancement of other legislative issues important to the university, such as permission to offer applied doctorates and enabling legislation for revenue-bond-funded improvements to campus.
Alumni contacts with St. Cloud State University leadership provide opportunities for information sharing and funding for special projects such as the Recreation Center. The St. Cloud State University alumni network is kept up to date and engaged through meetings and mailings and can be used as a force to influence resource decisions at the state level through contacts with legislators.
Budget hearings at the system level provide transparency of administration and opportunity for input from external and internal constituencies. The university is well represented at budget, tuition, capital appropriation, and other finance hearings, in order to advance our cause and to understand the context of our financial issues within the system.
These numerous lines of communication keep the university actively engaged in analyzing resource concerns and prioritizing resource needs. These dialogues—such as those with the alumni network—also lay groundwork for future resource development.
Supply and Equipment Budgets
Money for equipment and supplies is allocated to the various colleges based loosely on credit hours generated by departments, with some consideration of the intensity of equipment requirements (for example, Mass Communications operates a television station, and various science disciplines maintain instructional and research labs). Each college dean is responsible for allocating the money to the departments in the college. Most commonly, deans base their allocations on a combination of historic information and priorities determined by the departments, but each college uses a slightly different approach, tailored to its needs and traditions. Other units begin with a historical base and, if requesting additional funds, include a justification.
Given the reality of limited equipment and supply funds, the university should consider developing a common process for allocations to departments, using the strategic plan, the technology plan, and other relevant planning tools. Information such as equipment life cycles, maintenance, and change need to be incorporated in the decision-making process to help ensure that money is being spent in the most efficient and equitable manner, and to meet the needs of the future.
Funding for Capital Projects
Capital improvements have a separate funding stream from the general operating budget and are funded through state bonding bills or revenue bonds. As noted previously, four major projects that improve our laboratory and instructional space have recently been funded or approved through general obligation bonds. In the last two bonding bills, St. Cloud State University was allocated $18.6 million for these projects, with another $7.9 million approved for Higher Education Asset Preservation (HEAPR) projects such as new roofs, mechanical systems, and life safety improvements. Residence halls, the Atwood Student Center, and Recreation Center are funded privately through the St. Cloud State University Foundation.
Maintenance of Fiscal Strength and Reserves
The university maintains an operating reserve consistent with MnSCU standards of a five percent minimum and good financial practice for its core operations and auxiliaries. Currently, the reserve is $5,800,000. The university also maintains operating reserves in the revenue fund that enables it to meet any requirements within auxiliary operations for debt service reserve for revenue bonds.
Future Direction of Linkages
The university’s resources and budget allocation processes have allowed it to initiate new programs and recover from financial difficulty. From this reasonably stable platform, given the vagaries of legislative appropriation, the university is well positioned for effective implementation of the strategic plan. An advisory group has been established to propose a new or revised budget model that more closely links planning and performance to funding. Work by this advisory group began in 2006; initial implementation is expected for the budget developed for the 2009 fiscal year, with full transition to the new budget model planned for the 2010 fiscal year.
Initiatives to increase Revenue
In order to increase access, but also in order to increase enrollment, the university made a deliberate decision to expand online instruction to augment on-campus enrollment. For the same reasons, St. Cloud State University has offered, and will continue to offer, courses and programs at locations lacking access to baccalaureate or graduate education.
Resources at the university—faculty, staff and physical facilities—provide
a strong base. The facilities plan addresses upgrades and expansion
of science programs to make them more attractive to current and prospective
students and therefore increase enrollment and improve educational quality
in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines. (Increased
enrollment in STEM programs is a goal of both MnSCU and the university.) The
university’s positive budget balance in 2005 coupled with tuition
increases enabled the university to invest both one-time and permanent
funding in technology, make provision for additional faculty in new programs
under development, and add staff in several key student support areas.
Evaluation of Core Component 2B
State support for higher education has declined over several years as Minnesota (like other states) deals with reduced income and other funding pressures. Working within this context, the university is reviewing how it allocates its budget as needs change and as programs evolve.
Facilities planning is based primarily on academic needs. Several projects are currently underway to accommodate future needs of the university: Centennial Hall renovation, a new parking ramp, Riverview renovation, and an addition to the Wick Science Building to provide additional laboratory facilities.
The university maintains its reserves in accordance with generally accepted standards and good accounting practices.
Strengths: The university maintains a balanced budget and has built its reserves to an appropriate level after having reached an unacceptable level in 2000. The physical plant is well-maintained and attractive, with several projects in progress or on the drawing board. Deferred maintenance is at a minimum. The condition of the physical plant positions the university well for the future.
Initiatives in Progress: The university is in the process of developing a new budgeting model intended to help better connect funding to planning and performance. At the same time, we are moving to implement the Balanced Scorecard that will assist in measuring progress towards achieving a variety of goals.
Future Challenges: To meet student demand and address demographic changes, the university must continue to improve retention and graduation rates, increase online learning opportunities, increase graduate programs, and extend its outreach effort to include more programs and locations.
