joint planning, budget, and program review and assessment meeting
DESCRIPTION
Joint Planning, Budget, and Program Review and Assessment Meeting. January 24, 2008. Purpose and Goals. Integration of Budget, Planning and Assessment Building a Minnesota State Reallocation Process. Historical Trends. Enrollment State Allocation and Tuition Changes in CPI Index - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Purpose and Goals
Integration of Budget, Planning and Assessment
Building a Minnesota State Reallocation Process
Historical Trends
Enrollment
State Allocation and Tuition
Changes in CPI Index
Staffing Levels
Square Footage
Minnesota State University, MankatoFY78-FY07 Fall Headcount
Fall Enrollment
14,515
11,79911,947
14,76115,942
11,507
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Minnesota State University, MankatoFY99-FY08 FYE Students
FYE Students
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Minnesota State University, MankatoFY91-Est FY09 General Fund Revenue
FY91-Est FY09 Appropriation Vs. Tuition
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
Appropriation
Tuition
Minnesota State University, MankatoChanges in Consumer Price Index
CPI IndexFY 77 - 08
0
50
100
150
200
250
Minnesota State University, MankatoFY95-FY07 Staffing LevelsMinnesota State University, Mankato
General Fund FTE Staffing ComparisonFY95-FY07
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
FT
E
Unclassified Grad Assistant Classified
Minnesota State University, MankatoChanges in General Fund Square Footage
History of Square Footage
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
1,800,000
FY80 FY82 FY87 FY89 FY93 FY94 FY98 FY01 FY04 FY07 FY09
Planning/Budget Considerations
How much growth is required to balance budget?
How much new budget is needed to fund growth?
- Enrollment Management Funding Model
Can we accomplish the second issue while still balancing the budget? Will reallocation be required to accomplish both objectives?
Reallocation Model DevelopmentBrainstorming
Higher Education Reallocation Models< University of Michigan
< Washington State University
< Brigham Young University
Levels of Reduction
Elements of the Model
Reallocation Models
University of Michigan< Forced 2% reallocation each year
All areas receive 98% of prior year budget 2% set aside for Strategic Investments
Washington State University< Areas submit 3% Reduction and 3% Investment Plans
Highest Priority Investments are funded by Lowest Priority Reductions
Brigham Young University< Areas submit requests for new base funding from central pool
Any new funding requires an equal match from the division’s current base budget
Group Discussion Questions
What type of processes could be developed to identify target areas for reallocation? How do you make hard reallocation decisions in a shared governance model?
Are there potential areas within the budget that could be reviewed to positively impact the overall budget?
What are some examples of processes which could be reengineered to create savings for strategic reallocation?