1. © 2015 Boise State University1 Boise State University Bronco Budget 2.0 Committee 1.20.16 Ken Kline AVP, Budget and Planning

2. © 2015 Boise State University2 Previous Meeting Finalized Guiding Principles Determined Revenue Units Initiated Scope of Revenue Discussion

3. © 2015 Boise State University3 Agenda Complete initial scope of revenues Discuss revenue allocation methodologies

4. © 2015 Boise State University4 Guiding Principles The model should: Promote aspirational goals and a shared purpose Deliver transparency, clarity and predictability Provide incentives that promote excellence, academic quality and financial sustainability throughout the university Encourage innovation and entrepreneurship by assuring direct benefits to units willing to engage in responsible risk taking Foster interdisciplinary scholarly and teaching activity Provide sufficient resources to support University-wide strategic initiatives Allow for informed and forward looking decision-making Promote efficient and effective services

5. © 2015 Boise State University5 Academic Revenue Units College of Arts and Sciences College of Business and Economics College of Education College of Engineering College of Health Sciences School of Public Service College of Innovation and Design Foundational Studies

6. © 2015 Boise State University6 Other Revenue Units Campus Recreation Transportation and Parking Printing and Graphics Intercollegiate Athletics Housing and Residence Life University Dining Services Bookstore Student Union Morrison Center Taco Bell Arena

7. © 2015 Boise State University7 REVENUE DISCUSSION

8. © 2015 Boise State University8 Objectives for Revenue Discussion 1.Determine which sources of revenues will be included / excluded from the budget model in Phase 1 2.For revenues included in the model – Determine whether the revenue is direct or allocated through a formula – For allocated revenue, determine an initial allocation formula or identify data needed to make a recommendation

9. © 2015 Boise State University9 Scope of Revenues (Phase 1) Source of FundsInclude / ExcludeSource of FundsInclude / Exclude TuitionIncludeOther Operating RevenueInclude Mandatory Student Fees*IncludeGeneral State AppropriationsInclude Other Instructional FeesIncludeFederal / State Financial AidInclude as Tuition Grants and ContractsExcludeGiftsExclude F&AIncludeNet investment IncomeInclude Private (Foundation) GiftsExcludeOther Non-Operating RevenueExclude Sales and ServicesIncludeInternal ChargebacksInclude Auxiliary RevenueIncludeCapital AppropriationsExclude * Committee recommends the current methodology for determining and distributing mandatory student fees be reviewed

10. © 2015 Boise State University10 Other Non-operating Revenue 201520142013201220112010 95,757(2,545,025)(1,546,054)1,805,873182,282(513,912)

11. © 2015 Boise State University11 REVENUE ALLOCATIONS

12. © 2015 Boise State University12 Undergraduate Tuition Revenue From UC Davis: – Ideally, the allocation of tuition revenue should Support the overall quality of instruction and the student experience Encourage units to teach non-majors Reward efforts associated with providing instruction and supporting the major – The allocation of tuition revenue should not Encourage units to create courses solely for the purpose of increasing revenue or to create courses already offered by another unit Encourage behavior that is counter to the overall mission of the unit and the university Crease a barrier to cross-college teaching

13. © 2015 Boise State University13 Undergraduate Tuition Considerations Instruction Allocation – Who is paying the instructor? Team taught courses? – Who is offering the course? Major and/or Degree Allocation – Major Responsive to growth in majors As students change majors, impact on Colleges varies (need to analyze) Provides an incentive for growing majors and retention – Degrees Provides an incentive for retention and completion Lags in funding Provides no funding for the time a student spent in a College before transferring – Double majors ? – Minors / certificates? Self-support programs Online programs College / Program tuition differentials – Positive differential – Negative differential Non-resident tuition differentials – Non-resident discounts / waivers Institutional scholarships and aid Cost of instruction adjustments – Weighted by cost Pre-determines cost of instruction differences and allocates accordingly Reduces transparency Distorts the financial picture – Unweighted Central allocation provides additional funding to address cost of instruction differences Provides more control and less predictability

14. © 2015 Boise State University14 Distributed Undergraduate Tuition Examples* Kent State University – Net tuition revenue (unclear if blended, I assume blended since it doesn’t specify) – 80% to unit delivering instruction – 20% to the major (double majors are split 10% / 10%) – Utilizes current year enrollment data Iowa State University – 75% based on SCH generated – 25% non-resident net tuition revenue distributed based on student major (FTE) – 25% gross resident tuition revenue distributed based on student major (FTE) Scholarships funded using state appropriation University of Michigan – Initial implementation 1998-99: 100% allocated to the degree major to take away the incentive for units to create duplicate courses – 02-03: 25% to the unit of instruction and 75% to the major – 08-09: 50% to the unit of instruction and 50% to the major – Resident and non-resident blended University of New Hampshire – Blended net tuition revenue – Weighted by cost of instruction – Allocated based on weighted credit hours taught University of Washington – Blended net tuition revenue – 40% based on degrees awarded in the academic year two years prior – 60% based on sch taught in the previous academic year University of California – Davis – Blended net tuition revenue – 60% SCH, 30% majors, 10% degrees awarded – SCH awarded to both the College paying the instruction and the College offering the course – Inflates sch production but provides incentive for this interdisciplinary behavior (4% of undergraduate SCH) * Includes only the portion of undergraduate tuition that is not held centrally

15. © 2015 Boise State University15 EAB Report Tuition Revenue Allocation Institution Type Enrollment (Total/ Undergraduate) Carnegie Classification SCH TaughtMajorDegree Public28,300 / 21,600Doctoral / Research 100% Public26,600 / 21,200Research (high research) 80%20% Public51,700 / 33,600Research (very high research) 75%25% Public23,300 / 19,500Research (very high research) 50%30%20%

16. © 2015 Boise State University16 Boise State #s FY2016 Appropriated Budget Entire BudgetColleges and Schools Only Instruction82%90% Academic Support18%10% Note: Instruction / Academic Support is captured at the department level which is too high level to sufficiently capture the actual breakdown of effort.

17. © 2015 Boise State University17 THANK YOU Ken Kline, AVP, Budget and Planning Email: kennethkline@boisestate.edu Next meeting: Feb 10, 3:30 – 5:00, Admin 205