Executive
Summary
of the
Student Fee Advisory Committee
Budget Impact Review
Process
Prepared
by:
Karen Salazar,
Chairperson
Student Fee Advisory
Committee
Presented:
Student services
are an integral part of the University experience. The availability of these
services directly supports student retention. Succeeding academically
includes a student’s study skills and mastery of course material, and learning
to deal with other everyday issues students face. With health and mental
health centers right on campus, and as other resources such as the LGBT Resource
Center or the Center for Women and Men, students do not have to worry about how,
or even if, they will have access to these services elsewhere.
For many students
who have no private access to social services such as health care, these student
services become their sole access to resources to meet these needs. At a
time when social service programs are targeted for state and federal budget
cuts, students have come to rely heavily on the provision of these
services.
In a time of
increasing student fees, students should be able to expect to get the services
they deserve. Unfortunately, because of budget cuts, these fee increases
have only served to partially make up for the loss of funding. As a
result, students pay more fees, yet receive fewer services in return.
Moreover, the proliferation of User fees and Course Materials fees are examples
of some of the ways in which the financial burden for support of services and
general education has been shifted onto the shoulders of students.
As a
student-majority committee and the official student voice on matters related to
student fees and the provision of student services, the Student Fee Advisory
Committee (SFAC) feels it is our responsibility to advocate on behalf of the
services that most directly benefit students. Therefore, the SFAC
conducted an exercise to determine what the on-going effects of budget
reductions have been to the units that provide these services. The
Committee has done this through the Budget Impact Review Team (BIRT) process.se of
BIRT
The BIRT process
was initiated in FY03-04 as a method of evaluating the effects of the budget
reductions implemented between FY02-03 and FY03-04. These reductions
averaged over 20% and totaled approximately $4.1 million over the two
years. As a result, for FY03-04 the SFAC felt it necessary to temporarily
replace the Service Assessment Team (SAT) process with the BIRT process in order
to assess how the budget reductions had affected the quality and quantity of
services provided, how units dealt with the reductions, and how students were
responding to any changes to service and/or user fees.[1] While the BIRT process was very
successful last year, the SFAC found that many of the units had been using
carry-forward or other temporary funds to mitigate the impact of the cuts, and
as a result, the second year into the cuts would be more indicative of any
lasting impacts. Thus, the FY04-05 SFAC decided to continue with the
process again this year.
The purpose of the
BIRT process this year was two-fold:[2]
1) To
assess the short and long-term impacts of previous reductions on units’ ability
to provide quality services.
2) To
gain a better understanding of units’ long-term budget planning processes and
priorities.
The Committee has
adopted a fiscally conservative approach to dealing with the new budget
realities. Part of this approach included making 5-year projections for
the Registration Fee fund. These projections showed the Registration Fee
fund going into deficit beginning FY06-07 should revenue and funding allocations
remain status quo.[3] This structural deficit would be
caused by the increased hidden costs of funding employee fringe benefits.
While we understand that these projections are simply that – projections – and
not a guaranteed ending balance, we also understand the need to be
forward-thinking and to plan accordingly.
The SFAC’s main objective is to represent the needs and
interests of students when it comes to student services. While the
Committee is taking measures to address the impending structural deficit, we
also understand the need to plan ahead for a worst-case scenario. A
worst-case scenario for the Registration Fee fund would be one in which the SFAC
finds that it can no longer continue to make continuous incremental reductions,
slowly slicing away at units’ budgets. If this approach continues, there
will be a point at which units will be unable to provide quality services to
students. The SFAC will then be placed in the undesirable position of
reducing or eliminating some services in order to save others.
In sum, the
Committee understands that it may never be faced with this scenario, but it
would rather take the conservative approach to budgeting than do nothing.
This report should serve as the guiding document outlining the priorities for
funding that the SFAC has developed over the last three years[4]. Should the need arise to recommend
changes to funding allocations, this document should guide that decision-making
process.BIRTProcess
In Fall 2004, the
SFAC developed a questionnaire designed to help gather information to build upon
the information gathered by the previous BIRT process. The SFAC was
looking for ways to more accurately assess how budget reductions had been
absorbed by the units. As a result, the SFAC decided to focus on the
following:
1) changes to the
quantity and/or quality of services;
2) implementation
of new user fees or increases to previously-existing user fees; and
3) the units’ own
long-term budget priorities and planning processes.
The questionnaire
was sent to all units in December 2004, and was to be returned completed to the
SFAC by Jan 2004.
The SFAC began
conducting interviews with all the Registration-fee funded units in Winter 2005
to follow up with them regarding the questionnaires and to ask questions or
request additional information. Each of the four budget impact review
teams summarized the information they compiled into individual reports for each
unit, and made recommendations to the entire committee regarding funding
priorities. These were presented to the Committee in the March 2005, and
any necessary follow-up with the units was made.
The SFAC began its
budget planning and deliberations process in Spring 2005 for FY05-06, and as
committee experts on individual units, the respective BIRT teams weighed in
heavily on the recommendations. The level of priority for funding that had
been assigned to each unit by the respective teams was used to determine these
recommendations.
The following are the priorities for funding established by the SFAC.
These should serve as guiding principles for any future changes to budget
allocations.
LOW
PRIORITY:
School of Arts &
Architecture
|
Center for Performing Arts
(Education) |
|
Center for Performing Arts (Student
Services) |
Administrative Vice Chancellor
|
Intercollegiate
Athletics |
|
UCLA Housing Office
(CHO) |
|
Central Ticket Office
(CTO) |
Student Affairs
Organization
Student Affairs Administration
|
Student Affairs Information & Research Office
(SAIRO) |
School of Arts
& Architecture/UCLA Live
The majority of
UCLA Live’s Registration Fee funding pays for staff
salaries and benefits. UCLA Live has been able to reduce costs by
eliminating 4 unfilled staff positions and increasing its donor support.
Recent budget reductions have not affected student users. Even after
these reductions, however, an allocation of over $600,000 seems excessive.
Students comprise only 10 % of the total audience at UCLA Live
performances, yet student money pays for half of the fixed costs.
Furthermore, there is an implicit subsidy of $62 per student, yet the student
discount on tickets is only $10-$15. This indicates that student fees are
used to subsidize performance attendance costs for non-students.
Priority:
Low
Despite a $450,000
reduction in its operating budget for the 2004-05 year, Athletics’ primary
contributions to the UCLA community – promoting, school spirit, and students’
ability to watch sporting events – have remained unmitigated. Even if its
Registration Fee funding were reduced, Athletics would remain capable of
fulfilling its core mission. As with previous years, Athletics was unable
to provide a line itemization of its use of Registration Fee funds.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether Athletics is directing
Registration Fee money toward the most crucial areas of student need, such as
Title IX sports, the original justification for Registration Fee funding.
Priority:
Low
Community
Housing Office:
The Community
Housing Office (CHO) assists students in finding off-campus housing. The
unit has engaged in long-range planning strategies for over a decade, and as a
result, is very fiscally stable. Non-student user fees for landlords to
advertise their properties and be listed in the CHO’s
apartment listings generate approximately $50,000 a year in revenues. This
amount has remained a reliable source of revenue for CHO, and has allowed them
to continue to offer the same quantity and quality of services to
students.
While the demand
for the services will never go away, the SFAC feels that because of the CHO’s strategic planning, it would continue to offer quality
services, even with reduced Registration Fee support. Furthermore, a
carry-forward balance of $53,040 from an accumulation of salary savings and a
50% decrease in expenditures for office space rental, has enable CHO to
thrive.
Priority:
Low
Central Ticket
Office
The Registration
Fee allocation enables the Central Ticket Office (CTO) to sell UCLA students
discounted tickets to movie theatres and theme parks. A substantial number
of UCLA students buy the theme park and movie passes. With less student fee
support the director would try to seek more money from Athletics and the Arts
for selling their tickets, or try charging non-UCLA students fees before
charging students extra for the movie and theme park tickets.
Priority:
Low
SAIRO
SAIRO collects,
analyzes and distributes information about UCLA students to inform campus
administrators about student needs and provide regular feedback regarding
student services. SAIRO is currently staffed by 2 FTEs and 2 student
employees.
SAIRO down-sized
in the 1990s, and therefore, had a carry-forward balance for many years.
Currently that carry-forward balance is $154,455. Student Affairs intends
to take $20,000 - $30,000 of this carry-forward to use for other units in
need. Of the remainder, SAIRO stated plans to hire a PA II for 2-3 years
on a contract basis.
Priority:
Low
MEDIUM
PRIORITY:
Administrative Vice Chancellor
|
Deferred Maintenance
|
|
HUP-Scholarship Resource
Center |
Student Affairs
Organization
Student Affairs Administration
|
Student Information
Systems |
Student Academic Services
|
Career Center |
|
Student Internship & Study Abroad
Services |
Student and Campus Life
|
Cultural and Recreational
Affairs |
|
Office of International Students &
Scholars |
|
Student Legal
Services |
Student Development &
Health
|
Student Psychological Services
(SPS) |
|
SPS Telephone Help
Line |
|
Student Health
Services |
|
Center for Women &
Men |
Student & Campus Life
|
S&CL Division
Administration |
|
S&CL
Technology |
Chancellor’s Organization
|
Ombuds |
The total
Facilities budget has remained consistently at or near $600,000 since the late
1980s, dropping slightly to its current annual total of $540,000. While it
does not provide services directly to students, Facilities is doing its part to
maintain and improve the state of student services on campus. As repairs
neglected today will become liabilities in a more expensive tomorrow, Facilities
merits medium priority for Registration Fee funding.
Priority:
Medium
Scholarship
Resource Center (SRC)
The Scholarship
Resource Center assists students in seeking scholarships, fellowships, and
educational grants to help fund their college education. The SRC is a
small unit that receives the majority of its funding from Registration
Fees. In order to deal with the impacts of previous budget reductions, it
has reduced the amount of programming, workshops, and outreach it
provides. Further budget reductions would result in staff reductions, and
thus services provided to students.
Priority:
Medium-High
Office
Technology Center (Student Affairs Information Systems)
The Office
Technology Center (OTC) is the technology support wing of the Vice Chancellor
for Student Affairs. The OTC operates behind the scenes to ensure that the
technology needs of units offer direct student services are met.
After the
last round of budget reductions, the OTC received a 21% reduction in its
Registration Fee budget resulting in a real loss of $114,114. OTC operates
on Registration Fee and Student Affairs money alone. OTC is a medium priority
because its services are an underlying necessity for all student groups and
Student Affairs offices. However, they are not deemed high priority due to their
ability to cope with the past budget cuts and recent completion of a project to
update the network.
Priority:
Medium
Career
Center/Intern and Study Abroad Services Office
The Career
Center (CC) provides career services for UCLA students, including career
planning workshops and counseling, on-campus interviews, and on-line job
listings. It also works closely with the Intern and Study Abroad Services
Office, to assist students furthering their education outside of UCLA.
Over 2 years the
CC has implemented budget reductions of roughly 25%. This has resulted in
adverse impacts to service quality and quantity. Despite past success in
raising external funds, the CC has been unable to increase fundraising to cover
the reductions. The implementation of student user fees for on-campus interviews
and workshops did not have the fiscal results anticipated. As a result,
the fee has been rescinded. Long-term, the CC is exploring ways to make
its operations more efficient and create new ventures, such as a partnership
with the Alumni Association that will generate funds from new uses of its
resources without reducing services for UCLA students.
Priority:
Medium
Cultural
and Recreational Affairs (CRA)
The Department of Cultural and Recreational Affairs (CRA)
serves as the
administrative center for campus recreation programs,
facilities, and
services. As such, CRA serves a very broad cross-section of
the UCLA
community by providing unique and valuable services that are not
duplicated
in other units.
Previous budget reductions have not significantly
impacted student services, as CRA has been able to rely on revenue generated
from non-student user fees, such as recreation memberships. Further
reductions, however, would likely result in new and/or increased student user
fees.
Priority:
Medium
Office of
International Students and Scholars (OISS)
The Office
of International Students and Scholars (OISS) offers several programs that ease
the transition of international students to their new environments.
Increased overhead costs resulting from the implementation of the
Student Exchange Visitor information System (SEVIS), and recent budget cuts have
reduced the ability of OISS to expand upon its current programming. An increase
to user fees, however, has served to allay these costs and preserve the unit's
core services. Furthermore, it was reported that these user fees did not
represent a significant financial burden upon the students that OISS serves,
thus securing the unit's ability to generate additional revenue, should it
become necessary.
Priority:
Medium
Student
Legal Services (SLS)
Student Legal Services (SLS) provides legal counseling and
assistance
regarding a wide range of legal issues to all currently registered
and
enrolled UCLA students. These issues range from housing disputes and
credit
and financial issues to domestic violence and sexual harassment.
These
services are very valuable to students as SLS offers students
unparalleled
access to legal professionals for a fraction of what equivalent
services
would cost outside UCLA. In addition, SLS is the only unit on campus
which
offers professional legal advice and service, making this unit an
essential
component of UCLA.
The impacts of previous budget reductions include
fewer appointments available for students due to reduced attorney time and
increased student user fees. The SFAC feels, however, that more
operational efficiencies can be added, such as increased partnering with law
students to provide services at lower costs.
Priority: Medium
Student
Psychological Services (SPS)
In spite of
the budgetary challenges it has faced in the last few years, SPS has been able
to meet increasing student demands for services. SPS has implemented new
user fees, used carry-forward funds, and collaborated with other departments
such as the LGBT Resource Center and Center for Women and Men.
While
psychological services are important for many students, priority is classified
as medium because through the BIRT process, the SFAC determined that SPS could
reasonably handle the demand for its services with its current resources.
Priority:
Medium
Student
Health Services/Ashe Center
The Ashe
Center is a well-controlled, well-organized unit. The recent
implementation of its electronic data system allows it to track user ratings,
which will be helpful to SFAC in future evaluations. The Ashe Center is
expecting some problems in the future with increasing costs of employee
benefits, and does not have the ability to draw from external sources. The
Ashe Center will not be able to sustain its current functionality without
increasing co-pays or receiving increased Registration Fee funding. The
SFAC's continued commitment to funding the Ashe Center
is necessary to maintain this excellent resource for the student
body.
Priority:
Medium-High
Center
for Women and Men (CWM)
The CWM provides
student services ranging from counseling to workshop presentations, aimed at
promoting awareness of, and developing skills to deal with, issues of gender and
sexuality. Previous budget reductions have resulted in a decrease in
services provided. The CWM has had a carry-forward balance of over
$200,000 for the last three years due to salary savings from an unfilled
position.
The impacts
of previous budget reductions include heavy workloads for staff due to a
reduction in staff, coupled with increased demand for services. While the
committee supports the services the CWM provides to students, it recommends that
the CWM seek external funding more aggressively and look for ways to work with
other to provide services.
Priority:
Medium
Student &
Campus Life Administration
Student &
Campus Life Administration (S & CL) is the umbrella for all units under the
Student and Campus Life Division. Their focus is student-centered,
emphasizing quality student contact and teamwork among S & CL departments.
This office provides the necessary administrative support to departments in the
division that provide direct services to students. S & CL provides
administrative support in the areas of human resources, budgeting, technology,
and development for the units. Registration Fees are used for administrative
costs that support student programs and services. Some funds have also
been used to fund individual research project by students. The division
has maintained all programs and services without sacrificing quality of
service. The impact of the past years’ budget reductions has included
personnel reductions.
Priority:
Medium
Ombuds
The Ombuds office provides conflict mediation services to both
students and non-students affiliated with the University. Registration Fee
funding supports approximately 1/3 of the office’s operating budget, with the
remaining 2/3 coming from the Chancellor. Ombuds
dealt with the previous budget reductions by using some of its unallocated
carry-forward. These carry-forward funds accumulated over 4 years
(1998-2001) due to salary savings. Because of the availability of these
funds, no sacrifice to quality of service has been made. Possible
strategies to deal with further reductions include charging non-student user
fees. Because of its financial stability and support from the Chancellor,
Ombuds merits medium priority.
Priority:
Medium
HIGH
PRIORITY:
School of Arts &
Architecture
|
UCLA Marching
Band |
Administrative Vice Chancellor
|
Child Care
Services |
Student Affairs
Organization
Student Affairs Administration
|
Bruin
Corps |
Student & Campus Life
|
Center for Student
Programming |
|
Community Programs
Office |
|
ü Campus Retention Committee ü Student Initiated Outreach
Committee |
|
|
Marching Band
The Marching
Band has had issues with funding, which has consequently hindered its ability to
make certain appearances at sports events for decades. A task force which
included two SFAC members convened in 2000 and concluded that “the Band is
under-funded relative to the number of demands placed upon it and its players.”
The report also concluded that Athletics was not a “cash cow” that could be
expected to offer significant additional resources for the band.
The Band is
now in even greater need of funding. The last round of budget cuts reduced
the Band’s registration fee funding by 16%. Consequently, it no longer
performs at Olympic sports events (lamented recently in a student written Bruin
editorial) and has no funds to replace 15-year old uniforms or buy replacement
instruments. The band had a carry-forward of less than $3K. It does
not want to go into default and will delay purchases if necessary to avoid that,
managing down to the penny. Currently, the band is experiencing problems
with the availability of trombones, sousaphones and mellophones, as well as uniforms, and it needs to hire
additional instructional staff.
Priority:
High
UCLA Child Care
Services
This department
has had to endure the uncertainty of Registration Fee funding decreases, and has
had to face cutbacks at the state and federal level. The service that Child Care
Services provides for UCLA students is valuable in providing a low cost
alternative to students with financial need, and the SFAC strongly supports
their efforts. Many of the students serviced by them would likely face retention
problems as a result of any decreases in service.
Priority:
High
Bruin
Corps
Bruin Corps
provides over 240 students with service learning opportunities, whereby students
outreach to over 750 area elementary and middle school students through tutoring
programs. The Registration Fee accounts for about ten percent (10%) of Bruin
Corps funding. During the last round of budget cuts, Bruin Corps received a 16%
reduction, for a total loss of $10,677, in its permanent Registration Fee
budget. Despite this cut, the program has doubled the amount of students
that participate in the service-learning program from 120 to 248. Bruin Corps is
a high priority due to the ever-increasing demand for these services, the
continuing state budget cuts to academic preparation programs, and the value
they bring to both the students who work in the project and those who benefit
from them.
Priority:
High
Center for
Student Programming
The CSP is funded
completely through Registration Fees. The unit supports, advises and
guides over 800 student run organizations on campus including Greek Letter
Social Organizations. The CSP facilitates the acquisition and distribution
of resources to support student programming and assists with divisional programs
and projects. The Center registers and assists student groups in the
development, design, and implementation of activities to maximize their
educational benefit and to assure compliance with campus regulations. The
unit has made attempts to seek external funding, but has only been successful
with the Spirit Squad. The CSP is consistently involved in collaborations
with other units to produce programs and events on behalf of students and to
maximize funds.
Priority:
High
Community
Programs Office, CRC, & SIOC
During FY 03-04,
the Student & Campus Life Division of the Student Affairs Organization
approved the departmentalization of the Community Programs Office (CPO).
Essentially, all funding that CPO receives goes to pay for personnel
costs. Currently, the Campus Retention Committee (CRC) and the Student Initiated
Outreach Committee (SIOC), which are affiliated with the CPO, fund every other
cost associated with the CPO. The SFAC commends the CPO, CRC, and SIOC as
one of the finest examples of the administration and students partnering to
address funding concerns and broader social issues, in particular outreach
issues. Moreover, the committee strongly supports the efforts of the CPO and CRC
in providing direct student services and service to the
The SFAC
feels that budget reductions to the CPO, CRC, and SIOC would mean personnel cuts
and a considerable loss in services. Furthermore, demand for the units’
services has increased consistently each year, creating a significant strain on
already overworked staff and directors.
Priority:
High
LGBT
Resource Center
The LGBT
Resource Center has provided valuable services to students that the SFAC
strongly supports. The center is funded completely with Registration Fees
and any further reductions would mean elimination of personnel and the services
they provide. This is a very small, 2-person operation that needs all the
funding it currently receives, and the unit would suffer greatly from any budget
reductions.
Priority:
High
[1]
Refer to FY03-04 BIRT Cover Letter.
[2]
Refer to FY 04-05 BIRT Cover Letter.
[3]
Refer to Trend Report of Financial Activity FY00/01-Fy09/10 (Actual and
Projected) dated
[4]
Refer to FY 03-04 Budget Recommendations Letter and FY 04-05 Budget
Recommendations Letter.