2005/06 Support Budget

2005/06 Budgetary Challenges

Challenges photo 1There are several critical challenges the CSU will monitor as decisions by the state on spending priorities for 2005/06 are made. These challenges are important as recovery from the budget cutbacks of the past three years continues, and as the CSU positions itself to fulfill the promise of the higher education Master Plan in the years ahead. The following is a brief description of these important budgetary concerns.

Off-Campus Centers ($3,000,000)

The state must address funding issues related to expansion and growth of CSU off - campus operations. Off-campus facilities provide instructional services where demand cannot be readily accommodated by the main campus and where access to higher education might otherwise be denied. The state has supported the establishment of CSU off-campus centers because they are an integral part of the “home” campus academic program, offering upper division and graduate courses that allow students to complete specific degree programs. By policy approved by the CSU Board of Trustees under authority delegated by state statute, these centers have no negative impact on established higher education institutions in the region and are created only when alternative instructional delivery is insufficient to meet regional demand.

The state recognizes the importance of student access to these centers by appropriating enrollment funding based on the CSU’s ability to provide the same quality of service students receive at main campus sites. However, although the CSU receives enrollment funding on the margin for instructional services at these off-campus sites, such funding does not support—and there are currently no state funding appropriations that provide for—the fixed requirements for instructional space and space maintenance, library and other academic support, admissions and record evaluation workload increases, development and expansion of student services activities, and institutional administrative and non-faculty staff support workload as enrollments at these state-approved centers reach traditional increased-cost thresholds.

Funding is needed currently to address fixed-cost needs at three off-campus centers that have reached critical thresholds of enrollment demand. Such funding would re-establish the state’s commitment to support the total cost of student access and would acknowledge the CSU’s long-range goal to have programs and services in place to address the educational needs of future generations of students in areas not traditionally served by higher education institutions.

CSU Initiative to Facilitate Graduation ($8,910,000)

Challenges photo 2In addition to its strong commitment to serve all eligible students who apply for admission, with an overall graduation rate of 60 percent, the CSU also recognizes the importance of successful completion of the baccalaureate degree. Study after study has shown that college graduates have better health, are more active in the community, engage in more cultural and social activities, earn larger salaries, and find more professional satisfaction than those who do not earn the degree.

In March 2003, the CSU Board of Trustees approved a series of recommendations made by a systemwide task force of faculty and administrators studying methods to improve graduation and degree completion at the CSU. Although the university’s success in graduating students is comparable to—and in many cases, surpasses—the graduation rate at peer institutions, it is important that the CSU makes every effort possible to have its commencement lines more closely reflect its admission lines. Two strategic components of the task force’s recommendations were: (1) campus “road maps” to graduation for each undergraduate degree major; and (2) the establishment of lower division transfer course patterns for each undergraduate degree major. To implement these recommendations and effectively serve native students and transfers, the CSU’s need for student advising increases—especially at the time of initial matriculation and, subsequently, in the time periods immediately preceding class registration.

Progressive action that emphasizes the hiring of student service professionals and peer-advising interns, along with reassignment of full-time faculty workload to expand advising services for lower division major pre requisites and course work, will enable the CSU to reach out to roughly 300,000 students with assistance that will significantly improve their chances of attaining the baccalaureate degree. An investment of new resources for the CSU Initiative to Facilitate Graduation would have a permanent, continuing impact on the CSU’s commitment to provide authentic access that ensures students are prepared academically for enrollment and have the professional advising and peer guidance needed to graduate.

Clinical Nursing Program Support ($5,124,000)

Challenges photo 3California is facing a pressing need to dramatically increase the number of nursing staff to care for its growing and aging population. Master’s-prepared nurse educators are an essential resource in preparing and training a nursing workforce that will provide quality care to meet our health care needs over the coming decades. The University of California San Francisco Center for California Health Workforce Studies estimates that 43,000 additional registered nurses will be needed by 2010 to replace an aging workforce and fill an increased demand. Intensifying this need is a growing shortfall of master’s-prepared nurses qualified to serve as faculty in accredited programs. Several nursing programs throughout the nation have established innovative Entry Level Master’s (ELM) programs that offer an intensive three-year program leading to a master’s degree in nursing for prospective students who have a non-nursing bachelor’s degree (typically in a science-related field). ELM programs are intended to provide pre-licensure and master’s degree-level nursing education to candidates who already have baccalaureate degrees in non-nursing, but typically science-related, fields. These programs are generally structured as three-years programs, with the first 18 months covering pre-licensure requirements and the second 18 months covering course work leading to the master’s degree.

The CSU has 14 campuses that offer master’s degree nursing programs. Expanding opportunities at these campuses to offer ELM programs would provide some remedy to heavily oversubscribed pre-licensure nursing programs that have many qualified students stuck on lengthy admission waiting lists. Expanding ELM opportunities within the CSU would also address a growing shortfall of master’s-prepared nurses qualified to serve as faculty in accredited programs.

Increasing the Number of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty ($37,399,000)

Challenges photo 4In the California State University and across the country, there is serious concern about the increasing numbers of temporary faculty, as opposed to permanent (tenured and tenure-track) faculty, in institutions of higher education. There is growing alarm that recent hiring trends in higher education, necessitated by budget deficiencies, have upset the appropriate balance between tenured/tenure-track faculty and lecturer faculty. The trend is important because tenured and tenure-track faculty bear the primary responsibility for student advising, program development and revision, and participation in shared governance. In response to legislation passed in May 2001, ACR 73 (Strom-Martin), the CSU Academic Senate, the California Faculty Association, and the CSU Office of the Chancellor developed a plan to increase the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty over eight years. The final report and implementation plan contains the following features:

  1. The report sets a goal to achieve 75 percent tenured and tenure-track faculty to 25 percent lecturer faculty, measured in terms of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) systemwide.
  2. The report declares that the goal is the joint responsibility of the CSU administration and faculty, and the state.
  3. Annual funding requirements for this plan range from $5.8 million to $37.4 million over the eight-year period.
  4. To achieve this goal, the CSU must conduct between 1,800 and 2,000 annual searches for new tenure-track faculty.
  5. The state needs to provide expanded funding for recruitment and hiring, so the CSU can compete in the national faculty marketplace.
  6. The state needs to provide compensation funding for new positions at least equivalent to the average of current CSU employment offers.

Also, in response to the previously mentioned hiring trends and concerns raised by the legislature in ACR 73 (Strom-Martin), the 2005/06 CSU budget plan includes a request for $37.4 million to implement the first phase of an eight-year comprehensive eff o rt to increase the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty. The plan includes:

Challenges table 1

Adjust Marginal Cost Graduate FTES Unit Load ($18,629,000)

Graduate full-time equivalent enrollment is currently counted as 15 units per term in the marginal cost calculation that funds enrollment growth. To be consistent with the UC and national higher education institutions, graduate enrollment at the CSU should more appropriately be counted
as 12 units per academic term in the marginal cost funding calculation.

CSU Employee Salary Costs ($243,448,000)

The impact of CSU compensation lags. The cost to hire new faculty and professional, technical, and skilled staff, and the inability of the university
to offer compensation increases that keep pace with the annual rise in inflation or increases within the state and national marketplace has begun to erode the CSU’s ability to retain a highly motivated and qualified workforce. There are critical salary-related concerns within a number of CSU classifications that will require special attention in the bargaining process if the CSU is to successfully negotiate contracts in the years ahead. Additionally, a critical mass of CSU faculty and staff have reached retirement age, and the CSU must strengthen its salary base to compete for replacement faculty and staff demonstrating the level of knowledge and expertise possessed by current employees. In 2004/05, the faculty salary lag is calculated by CPEC at 12.7 percent or a funding need of $168.9 million to bridge this gap. Staff and management employees have not received compensation increases for two years. During this time period, government and private industry employees have averaged 3.4 percent and 2.95 percent increases respectively. The funding required to bridge this gap would be $75.5 million.

Deferred Maintenance, Libraries, Instructional Equipment, and Technology ($137,149,000)

These additional areas of concern are also identified in the 2005/06 budget plan discussion:

  • The CSU backlog in deferred maintenance currently approaches $390 million. The backlog is exacerbated by annual inflationary cost increases for completing repairs and budget shortfalls that restrict the CSU’s ability to adequately fund special repairs as buildings age.

  • The CSU backlog in libraries currently exceeds $80 million. The backlog in funding principally affects the CSU’s ability to maintain and grow its core collection of materials needed for student academic research.

  • The annual cost of instructional equipment replacement is roughly $46 million. The state-approved build-out of CSU technology infrastructure requires over $67 million for equipment to make the build-out functional.

Content Contact
Budget Development
(562) 951-4560
Chris Canfield
Technical Contact

Last Updated: November 10, 2004