Funding Metrics for UW Bothell and UW Tacoma

UW Home > Discover UW > Strategies and Initiatives

TCAC

July 2000 Report Index

Index to Appendices

TCAC July 2000 Report to the Provost--Appendix G

Funding Metrics for UW Bothell and UW Tacoma

NOTE: This document also served as Attachment 4 in the TCAC August 1999 Report to the Provost

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

June 16, 1999

TO:	Mr. David Asher Ms. Mary Clark Vice Provost Harlan Patterson Office of Planning and Budgeting Box 351262
FROM:	Norm J. Rose Chair, Tri-Campus Advisory Committee
SUBJECT:	Funding Metrics for UW Bothell and UW Tacoma

I sent the first version of this memorandum to you on June 2, 1999 Subsenquently, the four of us met to discuss it (June 10, 1999(. The new version below contains the suggested modifications and is appropritae for broader dissemination now that we agree the "ducks are in a row". It is my intention to bring to the attention of the Tri-Campus Advisory Committee three of the issues we discussed: There are the inadequacies of the current funding model to address:

cost differences of 2 year versus 4 year institutions
cost differences arising from serving various mixes of full-time and part-time students
differencences arising from using only 011 (general instruction) budget information rather than a prorated mix of 011 and 012 (health sciences instruction) to estimate costs fiven that UW Bothell and UW Tacoma have nursing programs included in the offereings.

There follows the revised memorandum:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I continue to be interested in funding metrics for UW Bothell and UW Tacoma, particularly in my role as chair of the Tri-Campus Advisory Committee. Before presenting the committee with issues I perceive as challenges to be addressed, it is imperative that I understand the details, i.e., that I have "my ducks in a ros". To that end, the purpose of this memorandum is to share with you my understandings and ask you to affirm that they are correct or to correct them where they are in error. Either way, I deeply appreciate your attention to this matter.

For new enrollments at UW Bothell and UW Tacoma the fundamental funding metric is dollars per student FTE. For the 1999-2001 biennium, one of these numbers is $9432 per upper division undergraduate student FTE. This number is based upon all acmapuses at UW and WSU, is composed of total state and tuition funded contributions and is based upon the HECB's "instructional cost" calculation. Thus, the estimated number $9432 is significantly weighted by institutions with a head count to student FTE ratio approaching unity (WSU Pullman and UW Seattle). The consequences of that deviation emerge for UW Bothell and UW Tacoma due to the fact that more resources are required to serve one student FTE when each student FTE constitutes more than one individual than when one student FTE effectively is one individual. (Please see Attachment I.)

If the procedding analysis is correct, one of two policy changes should be made:

The dollars per FTEfunding metric for UW Bothell and UW Tacoma shoudl be based upon the workload reflecte by UW Bothell and UW Tacoma head count to FTE ratios and not that of state research institutions.
The general fund should provide a fixed number of dollars per student FTE and then allow UW Bothell and UW Tacoma to "keep" the addes dollars per student credit hour of tuition paid by part-time students.

The later of these two is the better solution because it provides for automatic resources to serve part-time students based in real time on the actual numbers of such students being served.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mary Clark and Dave Asher, from the Office of the Vice Provost for Planning and Budgeting, were instrumental in developing the information tabulated below:

STUDENT FTE FUNDING METRICS

The definitions emplyed on the charts are derived from definitions utilized by the state of the Senate in building its budget. Appartently the HECB, the House, the Seante and the Governor's office utilize womewhat different definitions but, for our purposes, many of the key issues can be elaborated as well with one as another. Nonetheless, it is somewhat appealing to use either the House or the Senate version given (1) that the final biennial budget is generated by the legislature and (2) that the UW prepares its budget requests using definitions and measures of reference similar to the Senate. There are several interesting detailsabout the definitions and measures which will cause the actual revenues to be somewhat different from those calculated based on the numbers in the chart. However, for the purposes of looking at "big picture" comparisons, I feel the charts are adequate.

**1999-2000 FUNDING METRICS FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS**
Funding per FTE per Academic Year	UWS	UWT	UWB
State General Fund	$13,363a	$7,071b	$7,270b
Student's Operating Fee	$3,733c	$2,361c	$2,162c
TOTAL	$7,169	$9,432	$9,432

a. based upon four year program of study (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior).
b. based upon a two year program of study (upper division; junior, senior).
c. based on the current mix of part-time and full-time students at each campus and assuming campus total tuition waivers equal 21% of groww operating fees spread by level (i.e., graduate and undergraduate) based on 1997-1998 actual waivers.

**1999-2000 FUNDING METRICS FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS**
Funding per FTE per Academic Year	UWS	UWT	UWB
State General Fund	$13,363	$12,480	$11,442
Students Operating Fee	$5,119c	$6,002c	$7,040c
TOTAL	$18,482	$18,482

c. See footenote "c" above

cc: Provost Lee Huntsman

Enclosures:

TCAC July 2000 Report Index Index to Appendices