1 / 34

Institutional Decision-Making Tactics (FY2007)

Institutional Decision-Making Tactics (FY2007). Elaine Novak, Ed. D. Dean – Career & Technical Programs Illinois Valley Community College Oglesby, Illinois. OR. How Community Colleges Can Be Pro-Active When the Flow of State Funds Is Reduced. Survey Pre-Test.

minty
Download Presentation

Institutional Decision-Making Tactics (FY2007)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Institutional Decision-Making Tactics(FY2007) Elaine Novak, Ed. D. Dean – Career & Technical Programs Illinois Valley Community College Oglesby, Illinois

  2. OR How Community Colleges Can Be Pro-Active When the Flow of State Funds Is Reduced

  3. Survey Pre-Test • 20 community college Presidents were selected to assist with the development of the survey instrument. • Represented a variety of: • Geographic locations • Enrollment sizes • Campus configuration • College Age • NACUBO Membership

  4. Background • National Study – FY2007 focus of survey and responses • American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 2007 membership • Polled 1,024 public community college AACC memberships • NO: Tribal AACC Community Colleges • NO: State AACC Agency memberships • NO: Private AACC Community Colleges

  5. On-Line Survey Source • www.hostedsurvey.com • Hosted Survey provides educational sources a discount (must use “.edu” on e-mail) • Only charged based on the quantity of responses to the survey (47cents/CC) • No mailout paperwork; No postage; No return paperwork; No return postage • No Monthly fee to access data • Data results available for 18 months • Upload prepared email addresses to Hosted Survey • Electronic survey responses uploaded into Excel by Hosted Survey; I uploaded to SPSS • No manual data entry when results received

  6. On-Line Survey Source (cont.) • 2,048 e-mails sent out to CFO and CEO for 1,024 AACC member community colleges • Survey sent in March-April 2008 • 321 responses of 1,024 CCs; 31.3% return • Of the 321 respondents, 81 stopped responding at the same point of the survey • Hosted Survey denied any responsibility in this problem; they claimed survey fatigue.

  7. Survey Question 1 • Position title of individual completing this survey: • 264 = Chief Financial Officers • 36 = Chief Executive Officers • 8 = academic officers • 2 = student services • 11 = other administrative titles 321 responses (1 per community college FICE) See handout file titled “Slides 7-14 – Survey Instrument.doc”

  8. Survey Question 2 • The “chief executive officer” at YOUR LOCATION reports directly to the: • Local Board of Trustees ………….. 202 • Local-district/system-level chief executive officer……………………. 54 • State-level chief executive officer. 44 • State-level Board of Trustees……. 11 • Other………………………………... 10 321

  9. 19 College within Multi-College District 64 Multi-college District 114 Multi-Campus College 18 Campus of Multi-Campus College 5 University Branch Campus 101 Single Institution (321) Survey Question 3Select ONE organizational structure that best describes the college/system YOUR LOCATION represents:

  10. Survey Question 4 • What was your primary budget goal in FY 2006-2007? • 56 Achieving a financial surplus • 204 Balancing the budget • 25 Handling a distressed situation • 36 Enhancing revenue • 0 Other 321

  11. Survey Question 5 • What was your budget situation during FY 2006-2007? • 257 Stable • 64 Distressed 321

  12. (Skipping Survey Question 6 temporarily )

  13. Survey Question 7 • Did your college/system’s choice of fiscal management tactics in question #6 fulfill your overall budget goals? • 91 Our budget has improved • 87 Our budget has become stable • 53 Our budget is still distressed, but less so • 9 Our budget is still distressed, and even more so • 81 (no response; Hosted Survey technicality) 321

  14. Survey Question 6 • 44 tactics grouped into 5 categories: • Tuition/state funding/taxes/revenue sources • Staffing/Personnel • Class Schedule • Facilities • Grants, Marketing, Philanthropy • Survey respondents were asked to share additional effective tactics they used at the end of each of the above 5 categories • Received 88 additional tactics (reported; not ranked) [handout available later today]

  15. Asked survey respondents to select 1 of the following 5 choices for each of the 44 survey tactics: • Not applicable/not used • Not Effective • Somewhat Effective • Effective • Very Effective

  16. Only calculated responses rated • Not Effective • Somewhat Effective • Effective • Very Effective • “Not applicable/not used” responses were not included in calculations

  17. Research Question 1How are fiscal management tactics, used in FY 2006-2007, rated in terms of effectiveness by public two-year colleges? • Means calculation of 44 tactics for 321 survey respondents (see handout: Master Tactic List): • 0 tactics ranked as “Very Effective” (range = 3.5 – 4.0) • 23 tactics ranked as “Effective” (range = 2.5 – 3.49) • Mean = 2.5 – 2.98 • 20 tactics ranked as “Somewhat Effective” (range = 1.5 – 2.49) • Mean = 1.54 – 2.48 • 1 tactic ranked as “Not Effective” (range = 0.0 – 1.49) • Mean = 1.43 See handout file titled “Slides 17-21 – National Table Results.xls”

  18. Research Question 1(cont.) • Top 10 tactics had a mean rating 2.76 – 2.98

  19. 5 Revenue-Source Tactics: (#1) Increase Tuition and/or fees to students (#47) Increase marketing efforts for the College System (#40) Increase number of online courses (#46) Write grants (#48) Solicit funds to the CC foundation from alumni, other donors, & philanthropic agencies 5 Cost-Cutting Tactics: (#30) Cancel course sections with low enrollment (#31) Cancel programs with low enrollment (#23) Adjust departmental budgets at mid-year (#24) Reduce next year’s budget (#44) Share high school facilities Research Question 1 (cont.)Top 10 tactics split as follows:

  20. Research Question 1(cont.) • Lowest 10 tactics had a mean rating 1.43 – 2.14

  21. 3 Revenue Source Tactics: (#4) Design unique courses for delivery and sold to other colleges to generate revenue (#6) Lease college facilities to generate revenue (#8) Recruit more international students 7 Cost Cutting Tactics: (#15) Restrict faculty and staff leave and travel (#18) Reduce financial support for programs in workforce education, developmental skills, and/or community service sectors (#14) Curtail administration/ faculty/staff raises for at least a year (#27) Cap enrollment in courses (turned away students due to limited course sections offered) (#21) Reduce the financial commitment to athletic activities (#20) Reduce student support services (e.g., tutoring, counseling, and job placement) (#33) Cancel ALL summer sessions offered Research Question 1 (cont.)Lowest 10 tactics split as follows:

  22. Relationship between 44 fiscal management tactics and: • Community college FY2007 Age • Community college FY2007 Enrollment • Community college FY2007 Institutional Configuration • Community college FY2007 Geographic Designation • Community college FY2007 NACUBO membership status

  23. Research Question 2:Is the age of the public two-year colleges associated with effectiveness ratings? • One-way ANOVA • Categories: • Community colleges established prior to 1960 • Community colleges established 1960-1970 • Community colleges established after 1970

  24. Research Question 2(cont.) • One tactic revealed significance at the .01 level • Tactic #7 – Shifted budget allocations in all departments so that all programs functioned with adjusted bugeted funds • CC established 1960-1970 rated this tactic more effective than CC established before 1960

  25. Research Question 3:Is the Fall 2006 credit enrollment associated with effectiveness ratings? • One-way ANOVA • Categories (2006 Carnegie Classifications – IPEDS based): • Community college enrollment <500 • Community college enrollment 500 - 1,999 • Community college enrollment 2,000 - 4,999 • Community college enrollment 5,000 - 9,999 • Community college enrollment >10,000

  26. Research Question 3 (cont.): • One tactic revealed significance at the .01 level • Tactic #13 – Provided professional development for faculty to enhance student retention and student recruitment • CC with enrollment of 2,000 – 4,999 rated this tactic more effective than community colleges with enrollment of 500 - 1,999.

  27. Research Question 4:Do different organizational structures for public two-year colleges rate the effectiveness of fiscal management tactics differently? • One-way ANOVA • Categories (AACC defined): • Multi-College District • College within Multi-College District • Multi-Campus College • Campus of Multi-Campus College • University Branch Campus • Single Campus Institution • No tactics revealed significance at the >.05 level

  28. Research Question 5:Do rural, suburban, and urban public two-year colleges rate the effectiveness of fiscal management tactics differently? • One-way ANOVA • Categories (2006 Carnegie Classification): • Rural • Suburban • Urban

  29. Research Question 5 (cont.): • One tactic revealed significance at the .04 level • Tactic #25 – Downsized staff and faculty • CCs with a geographic category of Suburban rated this tactic more effective than community colleges with a Rural geographic location

  30. Research Question 6:Do National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) members and non-members rate the effectiveness of fiscal management tactics differently? • t-Test • Categories (Source: NACUBO): • Member • Non-Member

  31. Research Question 6 (cont.): • One tactic revealed significance at the .04 level for NACUBO members: • Tactic 23 – Adjusted departmental budgets at Mid-Year • Two tactics revealed significance at the .02 and .03 level respectively for Non-NACUBO members: • Tactic 39 – “Privatized” select curriculum programs • Tactic 32 – Reduced the number of summer sessions offered

  32. “OTHER” Solicited Effective Tactics • 88 responses (See handout) • Organized in these categories: • Tuition/State funding/Taxes/Revenue • Staffing/Personnel • Class Schedule • Facilities • Grants, Marketing, Philanthropy & Other See handout file titled “Slide 32 – 88 Other Solicited Effective Tactics”

  33. Data has also been prepared to reveal individual ranked means lists of Top 10 and Bottom 10 tactics calculations for EACH sub-category of research questions #2 – 5 for FY 2006-2007. See handout file titled “Slide 33 – Table of Contents – Top-Bottom 10 Tactics.docx” See handout file titled “Slide 33 – Top-Bottom 10 Tactics all categories.xlsx”

  34. Thank you! elaine_novak@ivcc.edu O) 815-224-0480

More Related