Presentation to the APLU Capacity Session

Development of a Capacity Efficient and Financially Sufficient Business Model:

Reversing a Debt.

Gordon Schaeffer, UCEAP Sr. Research AnalystUniversity-wide Office of the Education Abroad Program

Presentation Overview

• EAP Characteristics: Capacity, Access & Affordability– Market & Participant Demographics/Attributes

• Programmatic Designs– Institutional Strategy/Strategies– Programs & Intended Cohorts/Purposes

• Pricing– Fees– Student Budgets

• Other Resources– Business Intelligence– Market Intelligence

• Business Models– Recent Past

• Revenue (Appropriations/Fees)• Expenses (Staff, Instruction, Physical Infrastructure, etc)• Deficit

– Present Working: • Revenue (Fees/Appropriations)• Expenses (Staff, Instruction, Physical Infrastructure, etc)

EAP Characteristics: UC Systemwide

UC System & EAP Financial Aid Measures

66%

33%

60%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Will Receive Financial Aid Pell Grant

Award

Per

cen

t

Undergraduates Systemwide EAP Participants

• Origin as single campus: 1962

• Participants remain UC students when abroad

• All course credits & grades assigned to transcript as UC courses

• Full Funding Financial Aid on EAP Student Budget

• Nine campuses with considerable differences – population size, academic interest, financials, # Transfer students, etc.

Attributes of EAP Programs

Academic Year

2008-09 2009-10

Total Number of Distinct Programs by Partner & Option 355 311

Total Number of Programs by Partner 172 162

Total Number of Programs 119 121

Total Number of Partners 124 119

Total Number of Study Centers 50 48

Total Number of Countries 32 33

Campus n % MaleBerkeley 17,026 48% 63% 33% 31%Davis 13,797 45% 60% 34% 34%Irvine 12,895 49% 72% 27% 30%Los Angeles 18,375 45% 63% 36% 42%Merced 945 53% 73% 42% 37%Riverside 6,939 48% 78% 44% 32%San Diego 14,514 50% 68% 35% 37%Santa Barbara 10,141 47% 44% 26% 35%Santa Cruz 7,360 47% 45% 27% 31%Systemwide Total 101,992 47% 62% 33% 35%EAP Participation (Headcount) 4,413 32% 51%** 25% 18%

EAP Participating Campuses (Less UCSF: Health Sciences Campus): Indicators of Demand,

% All Campus Undergrads from

Traditional Under-Rep. Ethnicity*

** Single Selection: Restructured for Multiple Selection in 2009.

Upper Division Population

% Undergrads Pell Grant

% Upper Division Transfer Students

Participation: GPA, Partner & Length

EAP Participation by Program Length: Academic Years 1999/00 - 2008/09.

1,276 1,255 1,217 1,222 1,170 1,143 1,001 799 799 597

1,155 1,6382,413

3,071 3,065 3,148 3,317 3,730 3,740

858

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Academic Year of Particiation

Hea

dcou

nt

Academic Year Short-Term

EAP Enrollment (Headcount & Full Time Equivalency).

  Academic Year of Participation.

Measure 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2008-09

Headcount 2,855 4,241 4,147 4,529 4,337

FTE 1,984 2,545 2,483 2,648 2,526

Headcount: FTE 1.44 1.67 1.67 1.71 1.72

Type & Focus: Expenses or Costs

Contractual relationship as foundation of capacity and student opportunity.

•Location: Language

• Length

•Academics/ Discipline

• Price

• Personal Network: Friends, Family, past participants

Exchange & Capacity: Fees

Transition: Mixed Revenue

• Revenue is mixed• New fee was introduced for 2009-10 --Marine Biol., revenue/participant increased

(67%): $2,531– Retained length as 15 week program; cost to student increased 6.2%

Self Sustaining Entity Within a Public University: Non-Exchange Budget

• Return to Aid (RTA) Component

• UPF is a “benchmark”

• EAP must build up a contingency/emergency reserve

Self Sustaining Entity Within a Public University: Non-Exchange Budget

• Exchange (not “private provider” model for alien Americans) No Fee, Non-Degree• Balance/Parity – Capacity/Recruitment – year-to-year.

– Contract specifics about $ for “over/under” balance: as a state entity we should never be under• Credits/Grades - Workload• Registration Fee, Campus Miscellaneous Fees

Business Models: Telling Truths or Lies?

Last Attempts

• Better use of Database (Business/Transaction) Intelligence– Retention: Payment strategies– Contracts: Negotiations, program line-up adjustments (E.g., Spring UK/I:

Argentina)– Direct recruitment (20%)

• Construct a Network between the Campuses & Campus Recruiters– Improved use of reports (trade allocated capacity between campuses,

or partners beyond UO)– Employ Market Intelligence

• Surveys• Data Analyses

– Underserved Markets (students who commute (25% of UCI campus)– Males & Sciences (45% of EAP was male in mid-1970s)

» Identifying the Hubs of influence in their small scaled networks• Two UC campuses have a target of 50% of all students abroad during

campus career• Strategic Initiatives

– Alumni, NGO, Think Tanks, etc., as resources for students abroad, as voices of value, of the UC & Study Abroad (which is otherwise difficult to measure)