Institutional Decision-Making Tactics

(FY2007)

Elaine Novak, Ed. D.Dean – Career & Technical Programs

Illinois Valley Community CollegeOglesby, Illinois

OR

How Community Colleges Can Be Pro-Active

When the Flow of State Funds

Is Reduced

3

Survey Pre-Test20 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 responsesAmerican Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 2007 membership

Polled 1,024 public community college AACC membershipsNO: Tribal AACC Community CollegesNO: State AACC Agency membershipsNO: Private AACC Community Colleges

5

On-Line Survey Sourcewww.hostedsurvey.comHosted 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 postageNo Monthly fee to access data

Data results available for 18 monthsUpload prepared email addresses to Hosted SurveyElectronic 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 2008321 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 ………….. 202Local-district/system-level chief executive officer……………………. 54State-level chief executive officer. 44State-level Board of Trustees……. 11Other………………………………... 10

321

9

Survey Question 3Select ONE organizational structure that best

describes the college/system YOUR LOCATION represents:

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)

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 644 tactics grouped into 5 categories:

Tuition/state funding/taxes/revenue sourcesStaffing/PersonnelClass ScheduleFacilitiesGrants, 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

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”

17

18

Research Question 1(cont.)

Top 10 tactics had a mean rating

2.76 – 2.98

19

Research Question 1 (cont.)Top 10 tactics split as follows:

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

20

Research Question 1(cont.)

Lowest 10 tactics had a mean rating 1.43 – 2.14

21

Research Question 1 (cont.)Lowest 10 tactics split as follows:

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

22

Relationship between 44 fiscal management tactics and:

Community college FY2007 AgeCommunity college FY2007 EnrollmentCommunity college FY2007 Institutional ConfigurationCommunity college FY2007 Geographic DesignationCommunity 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”

Thank you!

elaine_novak@ivcc.edu

O) 815-224-0480