Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts

Part 4 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education. 

A valid criticism of the current funding-distribution formula, which allocates state appropriations using resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs), is that it does not account for students from diverse backgrounds and part-time students needing wrap-around services. Several of the presidents have proposed using headcounts instead of WSCHs to distribute funding. HCM Strategists, the committee’s consultant, recommend using headcounts for only a portion of the formula.

In part 2, we showed that a complete switch from WSCHs to a headcount distribution formula would have disastrous consequences for multiple institutions. In this article, we analyze cost estimates for student services based on advisor-to-student ratios and recommend that funding for student service expenditures be tied to a student headcount measure.

Achieving a 350-to-1 Advisor-to-Student Ratio

NSHE's service standard for student services is one academic advisor or counselor per 350 students. Table 1 provides a cost estimate for funding that many advisors system-wide. 

Table 1. Estimated cost of academic advisors and counselors

Total Student Headcount (Fall 2023)	107,000
Advisors at 350-to-1 students-to-advisor	305
Compensation per advisor ($56K average salary + 35% fringe + 11% FY2025 COLA)	$84,400
Total Cost	$25,700,000

The total cost of about $25.7 million represents 2.7% of the total budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities.

Enhancement for At-Risk and Students: Closing the Achievement Gap

Another goal is to enhance funding for services to at-risk students, including underrepresented minorities (URM), Pell Grant recipients, first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. NSHE data indicate 63% of students or 67,000 are historically minoritized and 32000 are Pell-grant recipients (data for the other categories are not readily available). The calculations in Table 2 show a cost of about $18.5 million overall to provide additional advisors or other program staff to support these students at the same 350-to-1 ratio as regular academic advisors.

Table 2. Estimated cost for additional support personnel for at-risk and underrepresented students (at a 350-to-1 student-to-staff ratio)

Student Services Expenditures

Funding advisors and support personnel is only a portion of student services. We can examine current expenditures attributed to Student Services for the colleges and universities. The NSHE Operating Budgets classify expenditures using standardized functional categories. Table 3 shows percentage expenditures for the NSHE colleges and universities for 2021-2022. The overall expenditure for Student Services is 8.0% of the budget, varying from 5% for UNR to 14% for NSU. Student Services include not only academic advising, but a wide range of services and programs beyond classroom instruction including information technology.

Table 3. 2021-2022 Expenditures by Functional Categories

A correlation analysis (Table 4 in footnote) shows that institutional expenditures for Instruction, Academic Support, and Operations & Maintenance are most highly correlated with Weighted Student Credit Hours. In contrast, expenditures for Student Services are most highly correlated with Total Fall Headcounts. Thus, the institutions are already allocating resources to serve students outside of the classroom in proportion to headcounts. The left side of Figure 1 shows that institutions are spending similar amounts on Student Services per student ($644 overall).  The right side shows, in contrast, that the two comprehensive universities spend a much smaller portion of their budgets (5 to 6%) on Student Services than do NSU and the community colleges (11 to 14%).  

Figure 1. Student Services Expenditures by Institution 

As discussed in Part 2 of this series, a complete switch for the distribution formula from Weighted Student Credit Hours to headcounts would result in huge disruptions of funding. However, distribution by headcounts for up to the current 8% of expenditures for Student Services would be reasonable and would account for a variety of support services and technology infrastructure.  

Recommendations

NFA recommends that Student Services expenditures (approximately 8% of the formula-funded budgets overall) be carved out from the resident WSCH distribution formula individually for each institution and that those amounts be distributed using an average of Fall and Spring resident headcounts. In future budgets, these headcount allocations should be updated through caseload maintenance items in the state budget process, plus an adjustment inflation. Because current Student Services expenditures are highly correlated with headcounts, this change would not cause a major disruption in funding, but it would allow for growth in services to students based on headcounts rather than student credit hours, accounting for part-time students who predominate at the community colleges.

Additionally, the headcounts should be enhanced for underrepresented minority, Pell recipients, and other identifiable at-risk or underserved students (without double counting individual students) by a factor sufficient to fund an additional counselor or other program officer per 350 of those students (roughly 0.25 to 0.30).  Because the current formula does not account for these students in any way, this funding should be implemented as a enhancement.  Once funded and implemented, the enhancement of headcounts for at-risk students acts as a performance factor–recruiting and retaining those students would boost future funding. 

NFA also recommends that all reporting by the institutions of student credit hours, headcounts, and other factors that go into the funding formula should be audited regularly. The formula should provide incentives to serve students, not incentives for creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

_______________

Table 4. Correlation Analysis of 2021-2022 Institutional Expenditures in Major Functional Categories

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations

Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula

Part 3 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education. 

Summer Course Credits

Summer school courses have traditionally been funded by student fees, not the state. But over the years certain summer courses have been brought into the current funding-distribution formula based on resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs). Nursing courses, science prerequisites for nursing, and teacher preparation courses were introduced as enhancements with appropriations for state-supported summer courses.

The CSN, GBC, NSU, and WNC presidents have proposed that summer courses be funded through the WSCH formula (Item #21 in Institutional Formula Recommendations). Their reasons include reducing the time to graduation by expanding summer course offerings and funding student support during the summer. 

HCM Strategists, the consultants NSHE retained for the Committee, recommend adding summer courses to the WSCH formula with or without new funding. Although we support the general policy that the state fund all courses helping students earn their degree or certificate, bringing summer credits into the WSCH formula without additional funding would have dire consequences.

Budget Cuts for Rural Community Colleges 

Non-state-funded summer credits range from 1% of WSCHs for GBC to 14% for NSU. As seen in Figure 1, HCM estimates that, with full funding, including all summer courses in the WSCH funding-distribution formula would cost an estimated $48 million. HCM describes “minor shifts” in current funding if summer credit hours are counted in the WSCH formula without additional funding.

Figure 1. Summary of including summer WSCH in the formula (HCM, p. 23).

However, HCM’s characterization of the budget effects as minor does not survive scrutiny. Table 1 examines the consequences for each institution’s funding.[1]  A 5% to 6% decrease in funding at GBC and WNC is hardly a “minor shift.” Neither are funding cuts of 2% to 3% for NSU, UNR, and TMCC. NFA believes that any change must be fully funded.

Table 1. Summer WSCH without additional funding.

Institution	Percentage Change in Share of Total WSCH (Systemwide)	Change in Total   WSCH Funding	Percentage Change in Total WSCH Funding
UNLV	0.77%	$3,873,296	2.0%
UNR	-0.69%	($3,504,870)	-2.7%
NSU	-0.11%	($557,363)	-1.9%
CSN	0.49%	$2,499,682	2.7%
GBC	-0.13%	($681,850)	-5.0%
TMCC	-0.15%	($768,229)	-2.3%
WNC	-0.17%	($860,667)	-5.8%
Totals	0.00%	$0	0.0%

Other Consequences

The discussion of summer course funding has not addressed how various institutions use summer school revenue. Although community colleges appear to collect the revenue centrally, UNLV and UNR rebate a portion to academic departments as an incentive to offer courses. Units and departments use this revenue for faculty development, conference travel for faculty and graduate students, research support, and emergencies. If summer courses are brought into state-supported operating budgets without funding, many of UNR’s and UNLV’s academic departments will face yet another budget crisis. Also, each university will risk support for research that contributes to R1 status. 

In addition, faculty workloads will be required to support expanded summer course offerings. Given the difficulty of recruiting and retaining instructors, adding summer loads will be a big lift for some institutions and programs. Departments and units may have to compensate by proportionally reducing course loads for B-contract faculty during fall and spring semesters, which could lead to students finding reduced course offerings. 

Conclusion

As previously stated by NFA, a new formula that merely redistributes available funding will be a failure. If summer WSCHs are added to the distribution formula, they must be fully funded as an added appropriation at HCM’s estimated cost of $48 million per year.

__________

[1] We cannot reproduce HCM’s percentages in Figure 1 using available public records, but the consequences using their percentages would be similar to those in Table 1. Our full calculations are available for review; corrections from authoritative sources are welcome.

***

We welcome feedback from faculty, especially department chairs, administrative faculty, and classified staff who manage state-supported budgets. Contacts: Kent Ervin (kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Doug Unger (doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Jim New (jim.new@nevadafacultyalliance.org), and Staci Walters (staci.walters@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and corrections. Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations

Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers

Part 2 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for the Funding of Higher Education. 

The ad hoc NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding has been tasked with evaluating other states’ higher education funding models to support their NSHE-similar institutions. These models are to be compared to Nevada’s current model, including allocation and institutional costs to deliver instruction. The committee will then determine whether other funding-allocation methods would be appropriate for NSHE. The Nevada Faculty Alliance has stated to the committee that a new formula will be a failure if it merely redistributes the existing funding without new resources. 

Impact of Formula Changes

The total funding per student at Nevada’s public colleges and universities is third-from-bottom among all states. It can be simultaneously true that certain institutions–for example, Nevada community colleges–are disadvantaged by the current formula and that all institutions are underfunded. Presidents will naturally recommend formulas that favor their own institutions, but the Committee must balance students’ different needs and resources and recommend an equitable funding formula.

The current formula distributes funding to the seven NSHE colleges and universities in proportion to resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH). A change from the resident WSCH to a different formula could result in a major disruption to funding. For example, as the following data will show, changing from WSCH to “unduplicated resident headcounts” in 2021–2022 would have decreased UNLV’s state appropriation by $55 million (−29%) and increased CSN’s by $69 million (+74%), out of a total $500 million appropriated to all seven institutions. 

NFA maintains that any additions to the formula (e.g., including summer school courses in the WSCHs) must be fully funded. Any changes to the distribution formula must be implemented only with hold-harmless provisions for at least two biennia to allow institutions to adjust. Furthermore, different measures may be appropriate for a portion of the budget—for example, headcounts for non-instructional student support services—but not for the entire budget.

Comparison of Different Formula-Distribution Metrics

The following tables and charts show how different distribution formulas would affect the seven NSHE colleges and universities, using 2021–2022 data. Tables 1A and 1B show the state appropriations in percentages of the total and estimated percentage change after a shift from resident WSCHs. Tables 2A and 2B show the appropriations and changes in millions of dollars.

Switching completely from WSCHs to other enrollment metrics for the funding distribution formula would benefit the community colleges and NSU, but without additional funding would require drastic budget cuts at UNLV and UNR, comparable to recent pandemic budget cuts.  Alternatively, different funding distribution formulas could be implemented for different institution types. Without additional funding, however, that could bake in disparities in the current formula.

The first data column in Table 1A shows resident WSCH percentages, which is how the current formula distributes funding. That is compared to unweighted student-credit hours (same as average annual full-time-equivalent enrollment) in the second column. The weightings of courses by levels and discipline are intended to account for the different costs of instruction.

The tables and Chart 1 compare three different headcount measures. Headcounts generally peak in the Fall semester. Total headcounts include out-of-state students; resident headcounts do not and are therefore lower. The “unduplicated resident headcount”, however, counts any individual student who has taken a state-supported course during the year. These can exceed the peak total headcounts because some students take courses sporadically. Because most of those students do not need year-round support, the unduplicated resident headcounts are a poor measure for the resources needed for student support services. We recommend the Fall headcounts, or an average of Fall and Spring, as more accurate for distributing funding for student services.

Finally, maintained square footage is included in the tables and Chart 2 because a bill in the 2023 legislature would have shifted the formula to consider only building square footage on each campus.  Square footage has been mentioned in the funding committee discussions mainly in the context of fixed facility operations and utility costs.

Conclusion and Future Analysis

The current Weighted Student Credit Hour formula attempts to recognize the costs of offering courses to students at various levels in various disciplines. That’s appropriate for funding instructional staff and operations.  Student support services geared to individual students are better correlated with student headcounts, including part-time students. There are also fixed facility and administrative costs that depend weakly on student numbers. In later posts, we will analyze these various cost drivers and how they might equitably be incorporated into a new formula for appropriate portions of the budgets.

Table 1A. NSHE Institutional Appropriation Percentages using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	37.9%	33.7%	28.8%	28.2%	27.0%	34.2%
UNR	25.2%	20.6%	18.9%	16.7%	15.3%	37.7%
NSU	5.8%	6.8%	6.8%	7.6%	7.6%	2.0%
CSN	18.6%	24.7%	29.3%	30.8%	32.4%	14.7%
GBC	2.7%	2.9%	3.3%	3.9%	3.2%	2.7%
TMCC	6.7%	7.8%	9.3%	9.7%	10.4%	5.5%
WNC	3.0%	3.4%	3.5%	3.1%	4.1%	3.1%

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Maintained square footage includes non-instructional space.

Table 1B. Estimated Percentage Change in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	0.0%	-11.1	-24.0%	-25.7%	-28.8%	-9.8%
UNR	0.0%	-18.3%	-25.0%	-33.6%	-39.3%	+49.6%
NSU	0.0%	+17.2%	17.2%	+31.3%	31.0%	-65.5%
CSN	0.0%	+32.8%	57.5%	65.4%	74.2%	-21.0%
GBC	0.0%	7.4%	22.2%	43.7%	18.5%	0.0%
TMCC	0.0%	16.4%	38.8%	45.5%	55.2%	-17.9%
WNC	0.0%	13.3%	16.7%	3.4%	36.7%	3.3%

Table 2A. NSHE Institutional Appropriations using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$189.5	$168.5	$144.0	$140.8	$135.0	$171.0
UNR	$126.0	$103.0	$94.5	$83.6	$76.5	$188.5
NSU	$29.0	$34.0	$34.0	$38.1	$38.0	$10.0
CSN	$93.0	$123.5	$146.5	$153.8	$162.0	$73.5
GBC	$13.5	$14.5	$16.5	$19.4	$16.0	$13.5
TMCC	$33.5	$39.0	$46.5	$48.7	$52.0	$27.5
WNC	$15.0	$17.0	$17.5	$15.5	$20.5	$15.5

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Assumes $500 million total appropriation.

Table 2B. Estimated Changes in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$0.0	-$21.0	-$45.5	-$48.7	-$54.5	-$18.5
UNR	$0.0	-$23.0	-$31.5	-$42.4	-$49.5	$62.5
NSU	$0.0	$5.0	$5.0	$9.1	$9.0	-$19.0
CSN	$0.0	$30.5	$53.5	$60.8	$69.0	-$19.5
GBC	$0.0	$1.0	$3.0	$5.9	$2.5	$0.0
TMCC	$0.0	$5.5	$13.0	$15.2	$18.5	-$6.0
WNC	$0.0	$2.0	$2.5	$0.5	$5.5	$0.5

Chart 1. Headcount numbers by institution and type

Chart 2. Distribution Formulas by Institution for Various Measures

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Update 5/17/2024:  Corrected values in Table 1B to be percentage change in institutional appropriation (rather than the difference in the percentage share of the total budget).

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations

• 
  

Update:  For the 2024 General Election, the NFA has endorsed Carlos Fernandez for Regent District 1, Tonia Holmes-Sutton for Regent District 4, and Amy Carvalho for Regent District 12.  Regent Carol Del Carlo was elected in District 9 with over 50% of the vote in the primary electon.

There are four seats on the Board of Regents up for election in 2024. The primary election is on June 11 with early voting starting May 25. The primary will narrow the field to two candidates for each race going forward to the general election in November--unless one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in primary in which case that candidate is declared elected and there is no general election.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action Committee (NFA-PAC) sent a questionnaire exploring NSHE and faculty issues to each candidate's email address. Seven of the 13 candidates have responded. 

The NFA-PAC is also conducting candidate forums that are open to all NFA members. Video recordings of the forums will be available for review once all candidates have responded to our request to participate. Candidate endorsements may be made by the NFA-PAC at the conclusion of the process. Only candidates who offer unqualified support for the principles of shared governance and collective bargaining rights will be considered for endorsement.

District	Questionnaire Responses	Forum Video
District 1 - northern Clark County	Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler	April 30, 2024 Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler
District 4 – northeastern Clark County	Aaron Bautista Richard Andrew Carrillo Donald Sylvantee McMichael (incumbent) Shawn Stamper Tonia Holmes Sutton	April 24, 2024 Aaron Bautista Tonia Holmes Sutton
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent) Bret Delaire Gary T Johnson	May 13, 2024 Carol Del Carlo
District 12 – southeastern Clark County	Amy Carvalho (incumbent) Jonathan Maxham	April 29, 2024 Amy Carvalho Jonathan Maxham

UNR Budget and Enrollment Update

This is an update to NFA’s eight-part series on the University of Nevada, Reno budget crisis published in January 2024. (Some of the original articles have been updated–most recently Part 3B. Growth of Executive Positions and Salaries). 

Budget Shortfall for 2024–2025

At the April 30 UNR Campus Conversation, Vice President for Administration and Finance Andrew Clinger reported the “good news” that the previously projected shortfall of $31.7 million for FY2025 has been reduced to about $12 million. The stated reasons for a lower shortfall were the three-month delay in faculty COLAs, the 5% increase in student registration fees and tuition, and an improved enrollment outlook. VP Clinger clarified that the FY2024 budget cuts would remain in place, including 108 faculty and staff positions being held vacant and 5% cuts to department budgets. The administration has told the Faculty Senate Budget & Planning Committee they found additional commitments to be budgeted. 

The UNR budget is not out of the woods: it is deep in the forest. Previous administrations would have considered a $12 million budget hole to be a crisis. No information was provided about how the $12 million shortfall will be addressed for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, but it is equivalent to an additional 100+ faculty and staff positions being kept vacant or eliminated. The cumulative budget shortfalls of $25 million in FY2024 and $12 million in FY2025 represent over 10% of the state-allocated operating budgets at UNR.

Enrollment Status

UNR’s Spring 2024 FTE enrollment is up 5.5% overall from Spring 2023 and the headcount is up by 15.3%. However, that counts the huge growth in enrollment from non-degree seeking undergraduates (a 190% increase to 4,900 students), primarily high school students taking dual and concurrent enrollment classes. Concurrent enrollment fees are only $75 per course, compared with the $788 UNR undergraduates pay in registration fees for a three-credit course. Future credit for concurrent Weighted Student Credit Hours would apply to the budget in the next biennium. In the meantime, this program, part of the UNR instructional budget, requires UNR personnel, including pay for the high school instructors, coordinators for each subject, travel funds to visit high schools, and administrative oversight. 

If we look at the enrollment of degree-seeking students, the headcount is down 1.3% from Spring 2022 to Spring 2023. At the most recent Campus Conversation, Provost Jeff Thompson reported that although new enrollment for Fall 2025 is down from this time a year ago, he did not have a percentage due to data-collection changes. In addition, continuing delays and errors in federal financial aid applications are impacting student recruitment and retention.

Possible Real-Estate Deals with Long-Term Consequences

At the April 30 Campus Conversation, President Sandoval talked about two potential real estate transactions, which were also announced at Faculty Senate meetings. First, the President is hoping to sell UNR land north of the Med School to the Department of Veterans Affairs as the site for a new VA hospital to replace the existing facility on Kirman Avenue. As reported to the faculty senate, the VA is considering the UNR location and one or two other potential sites to build the new hospital. Selling this land to the VA would rule out future northward growth for UNR and would displace lower-cost parking lots as well as several buildings. Proceeds from a land sale would be one-time money that could not be used for continuing budgets. Financial and other details of UNR’s offer to the VA were not disclosed.

Second, UNR is considering buying 18 parcels with homes and apartments south of I-80 between Lake and Evans streets, north of Sixth Street. To be dubbed “University Village,” the 49 or so residential units would provide faculty and graduate students with much-needed affordable housing in Reno’s expensive market. While we appreciate helping faculty and graduate students with housing, the projected price is $6.5 million plus an estimated $825,000 for improvements. The down payment would come from UNR’s property acquisition fund, while the rest would be financed with a loan from UNR’s Operating Fund assets (account reserves held at NSHE) and paid back through rent revenue. 

In another budget circumstance, we would applaud this decision. However, the long-term debt on this acquisition would limit future capital improvement funding because it would be added to the Business Building 30-year lease and bonds for the new engineering building, student achievement center, wellness center, and other buildings still being paid for. Another question is whether the properties in that neighborhood would be attractive to new faculty or graduate students at the rents required to pay for the loan, maintenance, and management, and President Sandoval did not mention a market study or business plan. The President has requested feedback through the Faculty Senate; you can provide comments here about whether future faculty and graduate students would be interested in living there.

Outlook

Provost Thompson and VP Clinger professed “cautious optimism” about the 2025–26 and 2026–27 budgets in the next legislative session, but that does not help for FY2025. President Sandoval has proposed a new ⅛-cent Washoe County sales tax for UNR and TMCC infrastructure and capital improvements, which would require legislative, county commission, and possibly voter approval. New revenue to fund higher education is highly desirable, but this is apparently the first time since 1885 [1] that county taxpayers have been asked to fund the state university. As mentioned by a speaker at the Campus Conversation, sales taxes are regressive.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, which will make recommendations in July, is a wild card. NFA has been actively engaged with the funding formula committee, and the NFA state board has published a set of principles for funding higher education. Faculty feedback on the preliminary recommendations for funding formula changes by the committee’s consultant would be appreciated, especially from department chairs and others who administer state-supported instructional budgets. 

###

Our UNR budget analyses are based on public reports and records and interpreted as accurately as possible given uncertainties in the assumptions used for various reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Previous articles on the UNR budget crisis:

• Part 1. Overview (updated 1/3/2024)

• Part 2. Increased University Support for Athletics (updated 2/2/2024)

• Part 3. Growth of Executive Positions and Salaries (updated with total compensation data 5/1/2024)

• Part 4. Student Registration Fees (1/10/2024)

• Part 5. Business Building PPP (updated 2/6/2024)

• Part 6. Inflated Enrollment (updated 1/25/2024)

• Part 7. Underfunded COLAs (1/19/2024)

• Part 8. Summary and Solutions (updated 2/2/2024)

[1] In 1885, the Nevada Legislature directed Washoe County to issue $25,000 in bonds to fund the university’s move from Elko to Reno, to be paid by a property tax in Reno (1885 Statutes of Nevada, Chapter LXXI).

NSHE Funding Formula 1. Preliminary Recommendations of the Consultant

Part 1 of a series analyzing proposals for modifying the legislative funding formula for  NSHE colleges and universities. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA state board issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding of Higher Education. 

The NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding is working toward recommendations on changes to the funding formula for the seven NSHE colleges and universities.  At the April 26th meeting, consultants from HCM Strategists presented their preliminary recommendations for feedback from the committee.  The HCM recommendations were based in part on recommendations submitted by the seven presidents and on interviews with committee members and a few other stakeholders, but also represent HCM's view of best practices. 

The NFA is actively engaging with the committee, with little other faculty input so far in public comment periods. The NFA state board provided a set of Principles for Funding of Higher Education to committee members, and we have provided background data and analyses on how the current formula has affected funding and how it has been implemented in the state budgeting process.  Committee members have taken note of our information during the meetings.

The Committee has just two more meetings, on May 30 and July 25, to finalize its recommendations.

Here we present an outline of the main HCM recommendations as presented on April 26. Future posts will analyze some of the consequences if the recommendations are adopted.

HCM Recommendation 1: 

Create a separate enrollment-based portion of the formula that uses both full-time equivalent FTE and headcount enrollment and incorporates weights for Pell recipients and underrepresented minorities (URM)

HCM Recommendation 2: 

Modify the resident Weighted Student Credit Hours calculations:

• Include headcount enrollment with adjustments for student attributes
• Review nursing program costs in light of state needs and goals
• Include all summer course credit hours in WSCH
• Do a 3-year average for WSCH to avoid odd incentives of “every other year” counting for the year of measure.

HCM Recommendation 3:

• Include all  WSCH in the formula regardless of term (i.e., including summer) to remove the disincentive to offer summer courses. NSHE could request a budget enhancement but should pursue this policy with or without new funding.

HCM Recommendation 4:

Performance Pool changes. The current Performance Pool is a 20% carve-out from base funding that is at risk if an institution does not meet performance targets, but has rarely resulted in funding being jeapardized.

• (HCM preferred option 1) Performance Pool should incorporate or be based on share of outcomes or relative growth.

HCM-recommended Relative Growth Model:  A certain percentage of the total funding (20% in the HCM example) is carved out as a performance pool and earned back based on “relative growth” or how much an institution has changed from its own baseline on a percentage basis.  Institutions with higher relative growth get a larger share of the pool. Institutions with lower growth than other institutions (or negative growth) get a smaller share of the pool.

• (option 2) Modify the existing Performance Pool by re-baselining each institution’s targets each year.
• (option 3) No performance pool or fund with new money only

Other HCM recommendations:

• No new cost study to adjust student credit hour weightings—just modify key areas based on state workforce needs, such as nursing.
• No changes to Performance Pool metrics.
• Do not create separate formulas for different institutions

Committee Discussion on April 26

Some committee members pushed back generally on the idea of redistributing funding with no new funding. For example, the addition of all summer courses to WSCH counts in the formula would dilute the funding value per WSCH and redistribute funds among institutions by up to 0.5% of their total budgets. Chancellor Charlton and Chair Hardesty indicated that the charge of the committee was to recommend changes to the distribution formula, not to recommend additional funding, but there was also discussion that the Board of Regents could make budget enhancement requests to fund any formula changes. Some committee members also objected to HCM’s Relative Growth Model for the Performance Pool because it would be funded out of existing appropriations rather than new money.

NFA Analysis

Every formula change has “winners” and “losers” unless the changes are fully funded and there are hold-harmless provisions for a transition period.  A new formula that merely redistributes existing funding will be a failure. Some of the HCM recommendations may have unintended consequences based on current budgeting practices at the various institutions at NSHE (for example, how or whether summer school revenue is shared with departments). NFA will be providing analyses of the consequences of the various funding proposals in forthcoming posts. 

We welcome feedback from faculty, especially department chairs and others who manage budgets on the ground.  Contacts: Kent Ervin (kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Doug Unger (doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Jim New (jim.new@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations

• 
  

As the end of the 2023-24 academic year draws near, we are happy to report that NFA has had one of its most successful years ever. It was a year marked by securing the largest-ever back-to-back cost of living adjustments for NSHE professionals in history, due in large part by the exceptional turn out of NFA members making public comment at Board of Regents meetings and advocacy on campus with constituents such as student leaders. We also saw restoration of long-term disability benefits, an NSHE priority, but one that past president Kent Ervin refused to let slip to the back burner. 

At the beginning of the academic year, the NFA State Board established five goals, and with a few weeks left before the year closes, we are happy to report that we have met or exceeded all of them.

Five goals:

1. Progress toward establishing one new collective bargaining unit - It is likely that a new bargaining unit may be established shortly after the start of the 2024-25 academic year. At least one chapter is reaching the critical level of support to ensure that more than 50% of their faculty will vote in favor. Once completed, it will take the remainder of the academic year, and perhaps the next, to negotiate their first bargaining agreement with administration.

2. Membership growth of 10% - Not only is membership growing, exceeding the 10% target by mid-January, it is accelerating. By April, growth has reached 20%, and we anticipate  22% before year-end. The story at some individual chapters is even more impressive. Both university chapters have grown about 15%, while the CSN chapter notched 19%, the TMCC chapter at 35%, and the GBC chapter a whopping 111%. In less than two years, TMCC-NFA has grown 121%, and is targeting 100 members before the end of the academic year. More than 54% of current teaching faculty at the college are now NFA members.

3. Restoration of GBC-NFA - As noted above, not only has the GBC chapter of NFA been reactivated, it is thriving. The State Board initiated a recruitment campaign in January, and by March the chapter had more than doubled in size and a new slate of chapter officers had been elected.

4. Quarterly newsletters - On this one we failed. The newsletters are not published quarterly because our activity has made it necessary to publish them monthly. All members receive the “Quarterly” Dispatch via email and readership exceeds 65% among the recipients.

5. Website update - Not only has the content on the NFA website been refreshed with dynamic content, such as current news and events, on the home page, we’ve also implemented electronic forms and payments for membership applications and PAC donations. Some membership growth is directly attributable to the new on-line application form that streamlines the process for applicants.

Of course, through the year, other issues and opportunities present themselves requiring our action. The passage of SJR7 in the 2023 legislature means that Nevada voters will be asked once again to determine if the Nevada Constitution should be amended to remove the status of the Board of Regents. The ballot initiative, known as Question 1, may offer many opportunities, but also creates uncertainty. NFA is organizing a series of town hall sessions for faculty to hear from and ask questions of stakeholders on both sides of the issue. No other constituent group will be as impacted as faculty if Question 1 passes.

CSN-NFA also successfully re-opened negotiations on their collective bargaining agreement for modifications that were contingent upon the outcome of the 2023 Legislative session, which was underway when the agreement was originally approved. The modified agreement includes cost-of-living-adjustments for new faculty who were not included in the adjustments approved by the Board of Regents for fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Other changes addressed inequities in workload for faculty in studio and lab classes.

At this time, NFA Officers are working with other faculty leaders and members of the Board of Regents to update Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook, the chapter that defines the rights of faculty members to organize for collective bargaining. The language was written over 30 years ago and has only had minor modifications since then. It is significantly outdated, and in some cases, doesn’t reflect the reality of NSHE practices. 

It’s also the time of year when we start formulating goals for the next academic year. 

Proposed 2024-25 goals:

1. Political action: Every election is consequential, but it’s not hyperbolic to say that the 2024 election may be the most consequential ever for faculty in Nevada and the NFA. In addition to Question 1, NFA will be very actively supporting candidates who actively support us.

   1. For the Board of Regents, we will endorse only those candidates who unconditionally recognize and embrace our critical role in collective bargaining and shared governance. 

   2. For state government offices, the NFA is supporting legislative candidates who support collective bargaining and academic freedom as NFA continues its work to establish bargaining rights for NSHE professionals in state law.

2. Membership growth - We hope for a repeat performance in growth. Another year with 15-20% growth is within reach.

3. What can NFA do for you in the next year?  Please reach out to your chapter leaders or state NFA leaders with your suggestions or concerns.  The NFA State Board will be setting new priorities and goals at our summer strategy meeting.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Committee is charged with making recommendations on a new funding formula for NSHE colleges and universities.  The NFA has been actively engaged in providing background information for the committee.  The NFA state board has issued our priorities and principles for the funding higher education for the benefit of students and the state, copied here and also available as a one-page document.

Nevada Faculty Alliance Priorities for Funding Higher Education

Reinvesting in Higher Education for the Common Good

●   Higher education drives upward economic and social mobility and should be affordable for all.

●   NSHE colleges and universities provide workforce development, ranging from training in technical sciences and advanced manufacturing to educating future teachers, nurses, engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, scientists, accountants, business managers, hospitality workers, public health workers, policy-makers, communicators, etc. All are important for Nevada’s economic growth.

●   Workforce and economic development is fueled by discoveries made by basic and applied research.

●   Student debt is a national crisis preventing generational improvement in living standards. The burden on students should be reduced through direct debt relief and by restoring student fees to pre-2008 levels.

●   Funding must provide for the actual cost of delivering high-quality education for students. A new formula that simply re-slices the funding pie will be a failure.

Principles for Higher Education Funding

Caseload and Operational Funding

●   Headcount funding should be tied to standards such as advisers per student (1 per 300 students, or more) and counselors per student. Some students require more wrap-around services because of their educational, socio-economic, cultural, or military backgrounds. Funding enhancements for these students should apply to all institutions and programs.

●   Evidence-based discipline and course-level credit-hour weightings are important for instructional caseload funding, but so are standards for the number of full-time instructors per student (>1 to 18) and the percentage of courses taught by full-time instructors (60% to 80% depending on institution type).

●   Infrastructure for research must be funded, along with investment in partnerships between NSHE and the state to pursue federal and private research funding.

●   Allocate funds for fixed costs for facilities, operations, and administration not based on student numbers.

●   At least 80% of student registration fees should go to fund instruction and student services, not be diverted to other functions such as intercollegiate athletics or capital improvements.

●   Maintain established proportions of state funding versus student revenue, with inflationary factors applied to both. Budget shortfalls should not be made up by increasing student fees.

●   To avoid pressure to relax academic standards, no funding should depend on grade assignments.

Outcomes-Based Funding

●   Discontinue the ineffective Performance Pool carve-out and establish outcomes-based funding with truly aspirational performance metrics but without jeopardizing base funding.

●   Outcomes metrics should not be based on absolute student numbers, but rather ratios that demonstrate access or success relative to target populations.

●   Graduation rates have too long of a time lag for the biennial funding cycle. Semester completion better measures current progress and captures non-degree-seeking students and transfer students.

●   Phase in outcomes-based funding in the new formula over several years to allow the institutions to adjust.

●   Incentives should recognize an institution’s own performance, not make it compete against other institutions.

Financial Aid

●   Set targets for state financial aid based on the financial needs of the students at each institution.

●   Provide need-based financial aid through state funding, not by redistributing student fees for Student Access.

●   Fee and tuition waivers for selected student groups should be 100% state-funded.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations