Institutional Research & Assessment

Analysis of Overload Funding at Southern Utah University

11/2/2001

Initial recommendations of the reprioritization process included permanent re-allocation of overload funding to enhance academic programs. This analysis suggests re-examining the recommendations. What are the general economics of overload funding? What are the institutional impacts on permanently re-allocationg overload funds? How can the overload funding model be improved?

Overload funding reflects both restricted and non-restricted obligations, and some funds have quasi-commitments attached to them. Table 1, approved by the Deans' Council in April 2001, illustrates the multiple types of obligations, commitments and restrictions on overload funding. The first category, commitments of overload funds, are restricted purposes. These funds support the purposes in the account title; the account "support instruction" is a balance forward account from the previous year. When making overload allocations to the departments, these committed accounts are taken "off the table." The overload revenues category summarizes remaining revenues for distribution, and within this category there are also annual commitments: sabbatical leave replacements and a standing commitment for English composition. These further reduce the overload revenue balance. The remaining funds are then distributed to the deans and departments according to the list in Table 1.

Table 1: Overload Budget for 2001-2002

Commitments of Overload Funds
215001	Summer School & M.Ed. 2000	$257,175.00	$310,375.00
218300	Richfield Off-Campus	$27,800.00	$23,837.00
221200	Womens Resource Committee	$1,550.00	$1,550.00
224105	Faculty Development	$27,490.00	$27,490.00
226212	Entertainment Bureau	$12,850.00	$12,850.00
226435	ADA Programmatic Support		$1,420.00
226460	Multi-Cultural Center	$6,200.00	$6,200.00
241000	Support Instruction	NA	$79,440.00
	Total		$463,162.00
Overload Revenues
224510	Account Balance for Overloads		$342,007.00
	Add academic unallocated		$36,612.00
	Add 2001-2002 adjustment		$100,000.00
	Less commitment to Language & Lit		$(63,000.00)
	Less sabbatical replacements		$(38,000.00)
	Net Amount Available		$377,619.00
Proposed Annual Distribution
Account		FY 2001	FY 2002
Number	Description	Expenditures	Budget
201000	Dean, Humanities & Social Sci	$-	$4,200.00
201200	Social science	$-	$5,000.00
201500	Language & Literature	$-	$25,000.00
201250	Psychology	$-	$6,000.00
201900	Honors Convocation	$-	$4,500.00
202010	Dean, PVA	$-	$4,200.00
202100	Art	$-	$6,200.00
202300	Theatre Arts	$-	$20,000.00
202400	Dance	$-	$9,000.00
202700	Music	$-	$3,000.00
203000	Dean, Business & Technology	$-	$4,200.00
203100	Business	$-	$24,600.00
203190	Business Education & CIS	$-	$18,700.00
203200	Technology	$-	$23,500.00
203300	Communications	$-	$50,000.00
205010	Dean, Education	$-	$4,200.00
205100	Teacher Education	$-	$18,000.00
205140	Masters of Education	$-	$19,000.00
205200	Physical Education	$-	$7,000.00
207010	Dean, Science	$-	$4,200.00
207100	Biology	$-	$16,000.00
207200	Physical Science	$-	$11,200.00
207500	Family & Consumer Science	$-	$22,000.00
207800	Math/Computer Science	$-	$27,000.00
224510	Academic Program Enhancement	$-	$36,700.00
225100	Library Administration	$-	$4,200.00
	Total	$-	$377,600.00

Even within the distribution, there are "quasi-commitments" to academic units for a standing claim on overload funding. Commitments have been made with communications, mathematics and computer science, physical science, BE/CIS (paralegal), social science and teacher education to cycle overload funds, based on historic experience and commitments. As a result, overload funding supports (1) growth through access to additional class sections, (2) growth through instruction of upper division and graduate courses, and (3) growth through access to laboratory sections. Some departments could not offer their programs without overload dollars.

Thus, SUU uses overload funds to deliver classes, to grow, and in some cases to offer selected programs that would not otherwise be offered. There are some recurring, annual claims on overload dollars that constrict how the University can grow, and the number of these claims is increasing. The tables that follow examine institutional growth, section sizes, and the scope of growth due to overloads.

Table 2 summarizes enrollments, providing a five year Annualized FTE enrollment average and an average rate of growth for the University. This becomes germane because the rate of growth of the institution is related to extend of overload funding to offer students access to classes. To sustain a rolling average growth rate, overload funding as a percent of the total instruction budget of the institution will need to increase.

Table 2: Annualized Enrollments, 1995-2000

Years	Annualized FTE	Rate of Growth
1999-2000	5,896	2.9%
1998-1999	5,731	1.5%
1997-1998	5,646	9.6%
1996-1997	5,153	7.2%
1995-1996	4,807
Average	5,447	5.3%

Source: USHE Data Book

Table 3 summarizes class section sizes by college during the 2000-2001 academic year. The summary includes only 1000-4799 course, traditionally delivered on campus. It excludes electronically delivered classes, graduate or remedial classes, and coop education, independent study, and student teaching. Overload funds enable the University to keep section sizes small and to offer students more interaction with faculty. The data also indicate capacity for growth.

Table 3: Course Section Size, Academic Year 2000-2001

	Fall		Spring
	Mean	Median	Mean	Median
College of Business and Technology	24.1	23	18.1	15
College of Education	18.9	18	17.5	15
College of Humanities and Social Science	30.1	24	22.5	17
College of Performing and Visual Arts	18.5	14	16.3	12
College of Science	21.2	16	17.2	12
General Education	64.9	65	24.5	15

Source: SUU Data Warehouse

Figure 1 depicts the distribution of all regular class sections offered Fall semester 2000.

Figure 1: Distribution of Class Section Sizes, Fall Semester 2000

Table 4 summarizes the impact of overloads on students, the SCH that overload courses generate, and the extent to which students enroll in overload courses. The data indicate that the University is highly dependent on overload courses and funding to accommodate students and offer the curriculum of the University.

Table 4: Overload Impact on Students

Full-Time Students in Overload Sections, Academic Year 2000-01
	Fall			Spring
	Total	Overload	Overload %	Total	Overload	Overload %
B&T	13,419	3,268	24.4%	17,744	1,243	7.0%
ED	9,371	1,117	11.9%	10,262	1,190	11.6%
HSS	18,584	1,691	9.1%	14,466	899	6.2%
PVA	7,091	919	13.0%	7,128	1,182	16.6%
SCI	17,360	2,696	15.5%	17,064	2,258	13.2%
SPCS	6	0	0	6	0	0.0%
GEN ED	2,915	0	0	1,563	24	1.5%
Full-Time Students in Overload Sections, Academic Year 2000-01
					Fall	Spring
Ave No.of Overload Sections Per Full-time Student					1.37	1.16
Total No.of Overload Sections Offered					1,961	741

Another demand on overload funding is from a personnel perspective. As the turnover rate on permanent faculty increases, more overload support is needed as are the salary savings. This is due to having to fill positions late in the hiring cycle while covering classes, and has been a factor in at least one of SUU's five colleges.

Without overload funding, the University could not offer its curriculum, provide access to students, and meet the program demand of departments. Because overload dollars are salary dollars, the FTE equivalent faculty they provide are included in calculations of program productivity, instructional costs, and student-to-faculty ratios. The University's Fall student-to-faculty ratio of 20:1 would have been nearly 2.5 points higher without overload funding.

The direct connection of overload to both instruction and growth suggests that the annual growth rate of the University times the instructional expense budget would provide an optimum funding base for growth, if the funding is used for unrestricted purposes. Hence, the instructional expense budget for 1999-2000 was $18,300,000 times the five-year growth rate of 5.3% equals $969,900 of unrestricted overload dollars for optimum institutional growth.

Reprioritization and reallocation would set aside from overload funding $60,000 for sabbatical leaves, $40,000 for new growth sections, and distribute the remainer to programs--both currently obligated and enhanced through reprioritization. The rationale was that "restricted obligations" would be met by placing earmarked funds in on-going budgets, and the balance of the overload funding would be transferred to enhance core programs of the University. However, distributing overload funding reduces the flexibility of the University to meet instructional needs and constricts growth. There would be no resource base beyond $40,000 to meet the growth needs of programs and departments.

What policy changes in the administration of overload funding could improve the current model? The following suggestions are proposed for discussion by the Deans' Council:

1. In Table 1, with the exception of "support instruction," the other funds and accounts are "restricted". With a bookkeeping change, they can be "off the table" as overload expenditures. They should be reclassified, as perhaps should other commitments of overload funding that are also on-going obligations.

2. On-going funding for sabbatical leaves is a continuing problem for both overload funding and for departments. The University should incrementally add funding to the sabbatical account to fully fund faculty sabbatical leaves.

3. As of third-week of Fall semester 2000, the five academic colleges had the average and median class section sizes recorded in Table 3 above and graphically displayed in Figure 1. The average regular class section size for the University was 36. Excluding class sections that were delivered electronically or graduate level, 280 class sections enrolled 10 or fewer students; 84 enrolled 51 or more, and 34 enrolled 81 or more. Of the 280 class sections enrolling 10 students or fewer, 57.1% were upper division and 42.9% were lower division.

As a general pattern of delivery, can the University afford this? Programmatically, should majors be authorized in departments with high service components but low numbers of majors in upper division classes? More specifically regarding overloads, should an "policy" be considered that overload funding for a class enrolling 10 or fewer students will be approved and funded if a minimum number of student credit hours (SCH) are generated in the class, for example 300? After all, overload funding is for growth, and is designed to promote access. Such a "policy" could continue: If there are less than 300 SCH in the class, overload funding will be approved at a fraction less than full funding, for example 3/4 or 2/3. Such a policy would be economically viable only if full funding were increased from the present level of $700 per credit hour.

| Institutional Research |