DOCSLIB.ORG

University Success 11-13-18.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University Success 11-13-18.Pdf Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education University Success Task Group November 13, 2018: Meeting Agenda and Notes 1. Review of other states’/systems’ use of financial dashboards/goals Discussion highlighted some of the financial measures/dashboards utilized by other systems/states, as referenced in the following materials or links. Many systems do not use financial measures; of those that do, measures tend to highlight affordability (a student success measure), operating efficiencies and trends, and/or financial ratios. The benefits and challenges of a composite financial index were also discussed. • Summary Document (attached, see pdf page 2) • SHEEO Report: Monitoring and Assessing the Financial Health and Risk of Colleges and Universities 2. Review of risk assessment financial measures Discussion about financial ratios utilized the latter portion of the financial risk assessment for illustrative purposes. The more common ratios were explained to increase understanding of what they measure and how they may be utilized as a management tool. • Sample Financial Risk Assessment (attached, see pdf page 14) 3. Discussion of optimization of shared services Discussion focused on the efficiencies that can be achieved through shared services, the System’s current shared services, and historical successes and challenges of centralized services. It was noted that the System is viewed as a leader in shared services, based on a study by Baker Tilly in 2014 (See Appendix 2 of this online report). • 2018-19 Shared Services Budget (attached, see pdf page 42) 4. Successful practices of other universities in reinvestment, improved efficiency, and implementing change Discussion reviewed some high impact practices for maximizing efficiencies both at State System universities and at other universities. In particular, the Oregon system has achieved a level of administrative centralization that may deserve some study. • Best Practice Examples (attached, see pdf page 126) 5. Big picture questions—The following were discussed. a. What is the purpose of the State System? b. How do we justify its existence? c. How do we make sure we are working on the right things, i.e., the things that have the greatest impact toward achieving the System’s goals? d. What does success look like? e. What are the indicators that show success is being achieved? Task group should consider a limited group of measures (e.g., 3-5) that may address operational efficiencies, financial ratios, and community engagement. 6. New Business—New study was released by Moody’s Investor Services • New Moody’s Issued In-Depth Analysis of the System (attached, see pdf page 128) 1 Summary of the Use of Financial Indicators by Other States/Systems As of November 9, 2018 State/System: Page 1. California (University of California) ........................................................................................1 2. Georgia (University System of Georgia and Technical College System of Georgia) .............. 2 3. Maine (University of Maine System) ......................................................................................3 4. Maryland (University System of Maryland) ............................................................................ 5 5. Minnesota (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) ........................................................ 6 6. New York (State University of NY) .........................................................................................7 7. North Carolina (University of North Carolina) ........................................................................ 7 8. North Dakota .........................................................................................................................9 9. Ohio ......................................................................................................................................9 10. Oregon (Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission [HECC)) .............................. 11 11. Texas (University of Texas System) .................................................................................... 12 1. CALIFORNIA University of California The 2018 UC Accountability Report provides the eleventh annual comprehensive assessment of the University's progress in meeting key teaching, research and public service goals across its 10 campuses. The data will inform the University's strategic planning, budgeting and performance management, as well as help the governing Board of Regents identify the most important policy issues facing UC. This version includes over 100 individual indicators across 13 chapters, assessing progress in areas like undergraduate success, diversity, research, financial aid, and finance. This reports financial trends since 2000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Data includes revenue by source, gifts by restricted use, costs by function, costs by object of expenditure, source of funding for instructional expenditures, capital funding, assignable square footage by use, and energy efficiency. This report does not provide goals, targets, or specific indicators. 2 2. GEORGIA Georgia: “Complete College Georgia” http://www.completegeorgia.org/ In August 2011, Governor Nathan Deal announced the launch of Complete College Georgia, a statewide effort to increase attainment of a high quality certificate or degree. Since that announcement, the University System of Georgia and the Technical College System of Georgia have partnered and collaborated on the strategizing, planning, and implementing of efforts that drive the primary goal of Complete College Georgia to improve student access to and graduation from institutions of higher education. CCG has five major work areas: . College Readiness: Mending the P-12 pipeline to increase the number of high school students graduating and ready to begin higher education work. Improving Access & Completion for Underserved Students: Identifying and removing common barriers for minority, part-time, adult, military, disabled, low-income, and first generation students. Shortening the Time to Degree: Improving current and developing new paths for students to earn a high quality degree in a timely manner. Restructuring Instructional Delivery: Improving the quality of student learning through effective teaching, facilitation and innovative modes of learning. Transforming Remediation: Improving remedial education practices to remove barriers and increase success. Aligned to the state plan, campuses developed institution-specific plans to improve access and graduation focused on the following areas: . Collaborative engagement between campus and community stakeholders . Data collection to identify strengths, areas for improvement, and the needs of regions and populations served . Alignment and institutional partnerships with K-12 school districts . Improved access and graduation for all students and for specific populations . Shortened time to degree by awarding credit for prior learning and improving transfer and articulation agreements . Restructured instruction and learning through effective teaching and learning practices in traditional and online courses Universities have campus plans with specific goals with annual targets, on which they report annually. For example, at Augusta University (2017 report) http://www.completegeorgia.org/sites/default/files/Campus_Plans/2017/Augusta_University_201 7_Update.pdf On each goal, they report: High impact strategy employed to attain the target Demonstration of priority or impact Summary of activities Measures of progress and success Baseline measures Interim measures Final measures Lessoned learned It does not appear that Georgia uses any financial measures/goals. 3 3. MAINE University of Maine System (UMS) Board of Trustees Primary Outcomes • Increase Enrollment • Improve Student Success and Completion • Enhance Fiscal Positioning of the University of Maine System • Support Maine through Research and Economic Development In addition, the Board identified two Secondary Outcomes to supplement this work: • Academic Transformation • University Workforce Engagement Key Performance Indicators related to investments in these priority outcomes are reflected in the UMS Board of Trustees Accountability Data Dashboard currently under development. UMS Dashboard: https://sites.google.com/maine.edu/umsdashboard/main Measures 19 indicators; 11 are financial. Finance Core Ratios: four components of CFI https://sites.google.com/maine.edu/umsdashboard/board-of-trustees-data/finance-core-ratios The Primary Reserve Ratio provides a snapshot of financial strength and flexibility by indicating how long the institution could function using its expendable net position (both unrestricted and restricted, excluding net position restricted for capital investments) without relying on additional net position generated by operations. This ratio is calculated as follows: (expendable net position/total expenses). The Net Operating Revenues Ratio is a measure of operating results and answers the question, “Do operating results indicate that the University is living within available resources?” Operating results either increase or decrease net position and, thereby, impact the other three core ratios: Primary Reserve, Return on Net Position, and Viability. This ratio is calculated as follows: (Operating Income (Loss) + Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)) / (Operating Revenues + Non-Operating Revenues) The Return on Net Position Ratio measures asset performance and management. It determines whether an institution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Keystone Library Network
    Keystone Library Network Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University www.libqual.org Language: American English Language: American English Institution Type: All Institution Type: All Consortium: Keystone Library Network Consortium: Keystone Library Network User Group: All User Group: All Language: American English Language: American English Institution Type: All Institution Type: All Consortium: Keystone Library Network Consortium: Keystone Library Network User Group: All User Group: All Keystone Library Network Contributors Colleen Cook Martha Kyrillidou Texas A&M University Association of Research Libraries Fred Heath Jonathan D. Sousa University of Texas Association of Research Libraries BruceThompson Duane Webster Texas A&M University Association of Research Libraries Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University www.libqual.org Language: American English Language: American English Institution Type: All Institution Type: All Consortium: Keystone Library Network Consortium: Keystone Library Network User Group: All User Group: All Association of Research Libraries 21 Dupont Circle NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Phone 202-296-2296 Fax 202-872-0884 http://www.libqual.org Copyright © 2006 Association of Research Libraries ISBN 1-59407-756-8 (paperback) ISBN 1-59407-757-6 (PDF) Language: American English Language: American English Institution Type: All Institution Type: All Consortium: Keystone Library Network Consortium: Keystone Library Network User Group: All User Group: All LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - Keystone Library Network Page 1 of 90 1 Introduction 1.1 Acknowledgements This notebook contains information from the 2006 administration of the LibQUAL+™ protocol. The material on the following pages is drawn from the analysis of responses from the participating institutions collected in 2006. The LibQUAL+™ project requires the skills of a dedicated group.
    [Show full text]
  • PASSHE Factsheet10-11.Pdf
    Pennsylvania Facts State System of Higher Education While the universities share a common mission, each also embraces specific spheres of excellence. Additionally, the purpose of PASSHE is “to provide high quality education at the lowest possible cost to students.” Sites Governance The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education A 20-member Board of Governors, which comprises four legislators, (PASSHE) comprises 14 universities, four branch three students, the governor or a designee, the secretary of education or campuses, several regional centers and the McKeever a designee and 11 citizens appointed by the governor, sets general Environmental Learning Center. The universities are policy for PASSHE. situated in rural, suburban and small-town settings throughout Pennsylvania, in the communities of The Board of Governors has “. overall responsibility for planning Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East and coordinating the development and operation of the System.” The Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, board appoints the university presidents and the chancellor, who serves Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock as the chief executive officer of PASSHE. The chancellor, with the aid and West Chester. The four branch campuses are in Oil of professional staff in the central headquarters in Harrisburg, is City (Clarion), Freeport and Punxsutawney (Indiana) responsible for the administration of PASSHE under the policies and Clearfield (Lock Haven). prescribed by the Board. The Office of the Chancellor, the central headquarters Each university has an 11-member council of trustees, which carries for PASSHE, is situated in the capital city of Harrisburg out Board policy and deals with a variety of local issues. The at the Dixon University Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Libraries of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
    Analysis of the Libraries of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Prepared by: West Chester Statistics Institute September 9, 2007 PREFACE This report was prepared by the West Chester Statistics Institute for the Keystone Library Network, Office of the Chancellor, Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. The West Chester Statistics Institute is a non-profit organization at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. The Institute provides collaborative statistical services by partnering West Chester University faculty members with current students in the Graduate Program in Applied Statistics at West Chester University. The data analysis and presentation for this particular project was performed by Kelley Romyn, current MS student in Applied Statistics, under the supervision of Randall Rieger, Professor of Statistics at West Chester University. Additional information about the West Chester Statistics Institute can be found at www.wcupa.edu/wcsi. The Institute can be contacted directly by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 610-436-3234. Table of Contents Page Summary ……………………………………………………………………. 1 Section I: Trend Analysis of Library Expenditures and Employees Overview …………………………………………… 3 Graphs: 1. Bloomsburg ………………………………….. 9 2. California …………………………………….. 10 3. Cheyney ……………………………………… 11 4. Clarion ……………………………………….. 12 5. East Stroudsburg …………………………….. 13 6. Edinboro ……………………………………... 14 7. Indiana ……………………………………….. 15 8. Kutztown …………………………………….. 16 9. Lock Haven ………………………………….. 17 10. Mansfield …………………………………….. 18 11. Millersville …………………………………… 19 12. Shippensburg …………………………………. 20 13. Slippery Rock ………………………………… 21 14. West Chester …………………………………. 22 Appendix A: Peer Institutions for Analysis………... 23 Section II: PASSHE Libraries’ Services Comparison Overview ……………………………………………… 28 Tables 1. Question ID and Question Text ………………….. 31 2. Bloomsburg ………………………………………. 32 3. California …………………………………………. 33 4. Cheyney …………………………………………… 34 5. Clarion ……………………………………………. 35 6. East Stroudsburg ………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • 2009-2010 College Catalog
    College Catalog 2009-2010 Volume 90 Revised October 19, 2009 3200 College Avenue Beaver Falls, PA 15010 724-846-5100 www.geneva.edu This catalog is designed to communicate clearly the information needed by students, faculty, and prospective students. It can be accessed on the Geneva website. The provisions of this catalog should not be regarded as a contract between any student and the college. Course content and regulations are constantly being reviewed and revised. The college reserves the right to withdraw or amend the content of any courses listed if circumstances necessitate such changes. TABLE OF CONTENTS College Calendar ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Fall Semester 2009–2010 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Spring Semester 2009–2010 ................................................................................................................................... 4 Summer Session 2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Geneva Today ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Mission Statement .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]