1. 1 Senate Budget 2007-2008 June 15th, 2007

2. 2 $240 M Government Reinvestment

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5 New Weighting Grid Teaching Grant based on New Weighting Grid; Teaching Grant based on New Weighting Grid; Weighting Grid based on Historical Costs (2004-2005); Weighting Grid based on Historical Costs (2004-2005); Future educational developments are funded on the basis of average historical spending Future educational developments are funded on the basis of average historical spending

6. 6 Proposed & Actual funding grids

7. 7

8. 8 New Weighting Grid : Impact on Concordia

9. 9 Winners / Losers

10. 10 Quebec University Deficits

11. 11 New Weighting Grid : Conclusion Universities with the largest accumulated deficits are the ones most funded under the new grid. Universities with the largest accumulated deficits are the ones most funded under the new grid. Coincidence ?

12. 12 In Québec New Grid/Reinvestment $90M-$90M-$60M Moving Ahead At Concordia New Grid/Reinvestment -$11M « Playing catch-up » Moving Ahead ?

13. 13 No growth in student FTEs, a conservative approach No growth in student FTEs, a conservative approach Tuition fee increase of $50 per term Tuition fee increase of $50 per term Budget Context and Assumptions

14. 14

15. 15 Evolution of Funded FTE Students

16. 16 Budget Context and Assumptions Government funding Government funding - No benefit from Government Reinvestment; (See P4 of 26) - 1% cost of living increase for Support and Building and Grounds; Support and Building and Grounds; - Incoming exchange students no longer funded by the MELS; funded by the MELS; - Inclusion of Space Deficit Funding in 2007-2008.

17. 17 In Addition, Need to provide for: Need to provide for: - Collective agreement increases; - Increased operational costs such as Utilities and Contractual Services. Utilities and Contractual Services.

18. 18 Budget Context 2007-2008 Decrease in Net Budgeted Revenues Decrease in Net Budgeted Revenues Increase in Net Budgeted Expenses Increase in Net Budgeted Expenses Preliminary Shortfall: over $15M Preliminary Shortfall: over $15M

19. 19 Budget Process 2007-2008 Budget Model Review Committee Budget Model Review Committee Operational Efficiency Review Committee Operational Efficiency Review Committee

20. 20 The Previous Budget Allocation Model A key factor in past student growth; A key factor in past student growth; Often referred to as the “entitlement model”; Often referred to as the “entitlement model”; Did not reflect internal cost structures thereby creating structural deficits. Did not reflect internal cost structures thereby creating structural deficits.

21. 21 The Previous Budget Allocation Model Replicating government funding, therefore based on Average Historical Spending Trends Replicating government funding, therefore based on Average Historical Spending Trends Would decrease the relative importance of resources allocated to Academic budgets given the impact of the new weighting grid; Would decrease the relative importance of resources allocated to Academic budgets given the impact of the new weighting grid;

22. 22 The previous Budget Allocation Model Academic Priorities could not be achieved by two of the faculties without incurring a deficit; Academic Priorities could not be achieved by two of the faculties without incurring a deficit;

23. 23 Transitional Budget Allocation Model Overarching Priorities funded at the Institutional level and distributed on a needs/strategic basis; Overarching Priorities funded at the Institutional level and distributed on a needs/strategic basis; Net bond Interest funded at the Institutional level; Net bond Interest funded at the Institutional level;

24. 24 Budget Allocations made in accordance with: Concordia’s past spending trends – as a transitional measure; Concordia’s past spending trends – as a transitional measure; Concordia’s needs as opposed to a method replicating governmental funding. Concordia’s needs as opposed to a method replicating governmental funding.

25. 25 Transitional Budget Allocation Model An approach that introduces: - the concept of academic pool funding; - the partial distribution of funding on a needs- basis. A first step towards a needs-based resource allocation for Faculties;

26. 26 Operational Efficiency Review Committee Created to appraise major operations and provide recommendations on how to improve efficiencies Created to appraise major operations and provide recommendations on how to improve efficiencies Teaching and research were excluded from this mandate. Teaching and research were excluded from this mandate.

27. 27 Operational Efficiency Review Committee Analyses were not designed to be in- depth prescriptions for procedural change, which could only be made in the context of targeted feasibility studies. Analyses were not designed to be in- depth prescriptions for procedural change, which could only be made in the context of targeted feasibility studies.

28. 28 Operational Efficiency Review Committee Product of interviews with key stakeholders and research from official University documents. Product of interviews with key stakeholders and research from official University documents.

29. 29 Questions asked to all senior executives included: What are some areas where changes can be made to improve University efficiency? What are some areas where changes can be made to improve University efficiency? Are there different ways to do things or view things that can improve or provide cost savings to the University? Are there different ways to do things or view things that can improve or provide cost savings to the University? How can resources be used more effectively and what are the obstacles that hinder efficiency, cost savings or change within the University? How can resources be used more effectively and what are the obstacles that hinder efficiency, cost savings or change within the University?

30. 30

31. 31 Areas have been identified for further examination, including but not limited to the following functions: Areas have been identified for further examination, including but not limited to the following functions: Communication and Advertising; Communication and Advertising; Enrolment Management ( including recruitment, admissions and retention); Enrolment Management ( including recruitment, admissions and retention); Information technology; Information technology; Space Space

32. 32 Each identified function will be reviewed in 2007-2008 ensuring that: Each identified function will be reviewed in 2007-2008 ensuring that: Roles are adequately delineated and coordinated; Roles are adequately delineated and coordinated; Duplication of resources are addressed. Duplication of resources are addressed.

33. 33 Moving Ahead Our Academic Plan 2005-2010

34. 34 Measuring Excellence Challenge Measure of progress / StrategiesBudget

35. 35 Measuring Excellence Challenge Measure of progress / StrategiesBudget

36. 36 Number of Full-Time, On-Going Professors, by Faculty

37. 37 RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FULL TIME PROFESSORS Québec University Network: 22.9 Comprehensive Universities: 26.9

38. 38 Number of FTE Students per On-Going, Full-Time Professor, 2003-2004

39. 39 Ratio of Undergraduate to Graduate FTE Students by Faculty, 2006-2007

40. 40 Total Dollars Awarded to Graduate Students and Amount of Average Award 2005-2006 Universities Where Data Were Available Millions of Dollars

41. 41 Average Research Funding per Tenured and Tenure-Track Professor (in Thousands of Dollars) Academic Year

42. 42 Full-time Faculty Hire Pool : $2.0M Full-time Faculty Hire Pool : $2.0M Increased Graduate Student Support: $.7M Increased Graduate Student Support: $.7M Increased Research Support: $1.6M Increased Research Support: $1.6M Teaching Equipment Renewal: $1.0M Teaching Equipment Renewal: $1.0M Overarching Academic Priorities Budget Summary

43. 43 BUDGET 2007-2008

44. 44

45. 45 Academic and Research – Net Increases 2007-08 (in millions of dollars)

46. 46 Support – Net Increases 2007-08 (in millions of dollars)

47. 47 Building and Grounds – Net Increases 2007-08

48. 48 Reconciliation of Budgeted Deficit (in millions of dollars)

49. 49 Budgeted Revenue Increases (in millions of dollars)

50. 50 Budget Provisions 2007-2008 (in millions of dollars)

51. 51 Network spending trends 2004-2005 /2005-2006

52. 52 A Four-Year Budget Evolution (in Thousands of dollars)

53. 53

54. 54 Net Loss from Forfaitaires collected from Out-Of-Province Students

55. 55 Net Bond Interest

56. 56 Thank You