University of the District of Columbia of the District of Columbia Periodic Review Report Response to Reviewers’ Commentary Prepared by University of the District of Columbia

University of the District of Columbia

Periodic Review Report

Response to Reviewers’ Commentary

Prepared by

University of the District of Columbia Allen L. Sessoms, Ph.D., President

Presented to Middle States Commission on Higher Education

October 8, 2010

1

Periodic Review Report submitted June 1, 2010 Contributors to the Response from Reviewers:

Allen L. Sessoms, Ph.D., President Graeme Baxter, J.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Steven Graubart, Managing Director of Finance Holly Madsen, Ed.D., Director, Academic Policy and Assessment Patricia Maida, Ph.D., Professor of English April Massey, Ph.D., Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Joshua Weber, Coordinator for Program and Partnership Development Karen Wong, Business Associate Jackie Xu, MBA, Financial Planning and Analysis Manager

2

Members of the Periodic Review Report Committees

Chair: Dr. Patricia D. Maida Professor of English Co-Chairs: Dr. Melanie Anderson Dean of New Program Development and

Compliance Dr. Holly Madsen Director, Academic Policy and Assessment

Professor Peter Martin (Budget, Planning, and Finance) Assoc. Professor of Business Dr. Connie Webster (Challenges and Opportunities) Professor of Nursing Dr. Bunggu Yu (Information Technology) Assoc. Professor of Computer Science &Information Technology Ms. Connie Spinner (CCDC & Workforce Development) Administrator, Workforce

Development Ms. Sandra Majid Carter (Student Services) Assoc. VP for Student Affairs Dr. Helene Krauthamer (Assessment) Professor of English Mr. William Hare (Cooperative Extension Service) Administrative Services Mr. Roy Balleste (Colleges and Schools) Asst. Prof./ Law Librarian Dr. Wynn Yarbrough (Mission & Governance) Asst. Professor of English Periodic Review Committees

Budget, Planning, & Finance

Administrative Services

Mission & Governance

Challenges & Opportunities

Peter Martin, Chair William Hare, Chair Wyn Yarbrough, Chair Connie Webster, Chair Valbona Bejleri Yansane Ibrahima David Gaston

Dorothy Gilium Katie Inmon Michelle Harris

Matthew Whitiker Antonio Dietens Patricia Igbene

Jessica Zulu Sandra Jowers

LaVerne Gooding Jones

Marian Smith

Schools/ Colleges Community College/ Workforce Development

Institutional and Learning Outcomes Assessment

Student Services

Roy Balleste, Chair Connie Spinner, Chair Helene Krauthamer, Chair

Sandra Majid Carter, Chair

Kathleen Dockett Tony Hollinger Marie Racine Karen Miller Diane Hyman Dale Lyons

April Massey Colin Touhey

Gail Mathapo John Page Andrew Ucheomunu

Blackboard Consultant: Dorothy Phaire

3

Response to Questions

1. Demonstrate the linkage between the annual budgeting and resource allocation process to the

strategic planning process. Under the direction of the President, the Executive Cabinet leads the strategic planning process and identifies goals and priorities for the University. The Office of the Managing Director of Finance supports the Executive Cabinet and serves as the key entity linking both the strategic planning and the annual budget process. The University Planning and Projection Model (PPM) is used as a framework to integrate annual budgets and longer term projections and to update, guide and communicate the implications of new initiatives, updated revenues, and financial pressures. Once the Executive Cabinet has taken into account the financial situation, analytics, and projections, Finance/Budget implements the identified strategic goals and priorities into the operating budget. Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan establishes University goals and institutional priorities. It is developed under the direction of the Office of the President and driven by President Sessoms’s overall University vision. An updated plan is currently being developed and will incorporate key University goals and objectives along with strategies to implement these goals. The strategic plan is being implemented under the leadership of President Sessoms and Provost Baxter. The Executive Cabinet of the President, consisting of the Vice Presidents and individual department leaders (i.e. General Council), serve as the overarching planning group for the Strategic Plan. The Board of Trustees is also involved in reviewing the long-term plan. Key components of the Strategic Plan include University strategic goals, individual department plans, and the academic plan:

Individual Departmental Strategic Planning. Each administrative department develops its own individual plan based on its goals, current activities, and budget. These plans are distributed and reviewed by the Executive Cabinet. In addition, plans are presented and reviewed at a strategic planning retreat in which the Executive Cabinet and the Board of Trustees work in partnership to help further the University’s mission. While formulating the strategic plan, the group takes into account departmental goals, current budget, and future expense requirements.

Academic Strategic Planning. In 2009, the University initiated a new long-term planning process. The Provost’s faculty working group on planning convened during summer and fall 2009 to develop strategic directions for the Flagship University. Along with consultations from internal and external stakeholders, such as the steering committee of deans, this effort resulted in delineation of the scope of UDC’s academic mission as a land-grant university. This collaboration inspired new thinking about refocusing and realigning programs. Faculty members took these ideas to their departments to inform program reviews. Long-term academic planning, which is implemented incrementally as funds become available, is vetted through the major academic decision-making bodies and the University’s Finance Team. The new scope of engagement flows from UDC’s mission and vision, and extends the overall planning process to all degree programs. The vision guides a set of central priorities for the University. Following these priorities, programs and departments develop proposals for key components such as curricula, research, staffing, and resources. Their proposals are submitted to

4

the Academic Standards, Programs and Policies Committee of the Academic Senate, where they are vetted by a group of faculty members and administrators. The data presented integrates the collaborative efforts of the Finance Team and the academic program’s plan. Once approved by the Academic Senate, academic proposals and fiscal impact statements, detailing the financial analysis of a proposal, are delivered to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board. Should a proposal be approved, the next step is to submit the proposal to the full Board of Trustees, including data showing how the program fits within the University’s budget and resource planning. To inform the academic strategic planning process, all academic units reviewed their programs during Academic Year 2009-2010. The program review links the overarching academic planning process with financial resource planning. Each program conducted a self-study using objective benchmarks, evidence, and methods for collecting evidence used to assess the unit’s effectiveness at meeting the criteria. They were asked to include accreditation status; regional or national data; and qualitative, quantitative, or comparative evidence. Their reports indicated that each program considered quality in terms of instruction, curriculum, distinctiveness and relevance to mission. They also looked at productivity by analyzing data on enrollment, demand, market share, retention/graduation rates, and teaching productivity/efficiency. Based on this data, each program analyzed its current status and provided this information to their Deans. The Deans and the Provost are now examining this initial review to make specific decisions about expanding, terminating, or significantly reconstituting programs. These decisions will be based on whether proposals meet the University’s vision and long-term priorities, including resource planning. In the case of programs that will be terminated or reconstituted, funding will become available to support new programming. The reviews also helped identify target goals for all remaining programs in terms of enrollments, degree obtainment, and qualitative measures, and development and implementation of program-specific strategies for improvement to help achieve these goals. Academic leaders and the Office of the Managing Director of Finance will examine whether these goals have been achieved to determine how they will influence ongoing planning. The Community College of the District of Columbia (CCDC) is building a strategic planning process built off of the structure of the Flagship University strategic planning process. As part of this collaborative process, CCDC has employed an external consulting firm to assist in this effort. The consulting firm has been working in conjunction with the Office of the Managing Director of Finance to utilize the Planning and Projection Model and the shared resources analysis, which was summarized in page 43 of the PRR.

Annual Budget/Resource Allocation Process. As discussed on page 41 of the Periodic Review Report, the University has an annual Budget Formulation Process. Each individual department is required to develop their budget incorporating the priorities from their individual department plan and the overall University strategic plan. The overall budget is initially reviewed by the Finance team and then with the Executive Cabinet. The Board of Trustees provides the next review. These reviews ensure that the strategic priorities from the overall plan are included in the budget resource allocation. Overall guidance is provided to the Budget Team using the revenue projections from the UDC Planning and Projection Model (PPM). The PPM integrates expenditures from new initiatives and recurring base

5

expenditure pressures. The projection model is then used to provide guidance to the Executive Cabinet and key financial staff to support budget decision making. Linking the Processes: The PPM and FIS The Office of the Managing Director of Finance acts as a key link between the Strategic Planning process and the Annual Budgeting process. Through its projection model and fiscal impact statements, the Managing Director of Finance and his team integrate new programs and pressures into the budgeting process and communicate the financial picture and limitations to the University community.

Planning and Projection Model (PPM). The University has developed and continues to refine an integrated five-year University planning and projection model to provide guidance during the budgeting process and act as a linkage between the University strategic planning process and the budgeting process. This model allows us to monitor the implementation of the strategic plan, enforce high-priority initiatives, manage available resources, and guide the budgeting process to reflect resource availability and future needs. The PPM also allows us to view the overall current and future financial picture of the University. The planning and projection model integrates five -year revenue and expense projections and is continuously adjusted to reflect new initiatives, updated data, and new spending pressures. The revenue component on the model is developed based on historic data, current data, and key trends. The expenses component of the model reflects current operating needs, future projected needs, and strategic priorities identified in the strategic plan. The model is then reviewed with the executive Cabinet as a whole and with key leaders on individual components (i.e. CEO of CCDC for the CCDC projections). This model is developed and managed by the Office of the Managing Director of Finance. This team is centrally involved in the leadership of the annual budget process and in the strategic planning process. There is continuous discussion between this team and the Executive Cabinet members and the Board of Trustees on the strategic side and the Director of Budget on the budgeting side regarding the financial situation of the University and the impact of new priorities and programs on the budget and strategic plan.

Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS). The University requires that every new Board resolution (any

new academic and administrative program or initiative) have a Fiscal Impact Statement, a report that conducts a financial analysis of each program or initiative. A Fiscal Impact Statement evaluates a program/initiative from a financial perspective and creates a business model built around the program/initiative with projected enrollment, revenue, and direct costs. The Office of the Managing Director assesses the direct financial benefit and cost of the new resolution along with its impact to the overall University financial situation over the next five years. The FIS also conducts a risk assessment of each new resolution and looks at potential risks and mitigation solutions. In developing this model, the Office of the Managing Director of Finance works closely with the program side to communicate the program vision in financial terms. This Fiscal Impact Statement is presented to the Board for approval along with a program description. Once the proposed resolution is approved by the Board, the FIS analysis is integrated into the University’s five-year planning model. Through the Fiscal Impact Statements, program decision making is integrated into the University financial picture and strategic vision.

6

Reporting and Communication. A key component to successful planning and budget is high quality data and information. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the reporting and communication mechanism, the University is upgrading its various outdated information systems and investing in a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, Banner. The Banner Finance implementation date is October 2010. With the integrated Banner system’s ability to consolidate data and automate business processes and student services, operational efficiency is expected to increase significantly. Data will also be much more accessible, which will greatly increase the transparency of information to help administrators, faculty, staff, and students make sound decisions. With Banner implementation, departments can better monitor their budgets and expenses on a real-time basis.

7

2. Provide evidence that shows multi-year budget projections for at least the next three years.

UDC’s five year Planning and Projection Model (PPM) is used for both budgeting and strategic planning purposes. The model incorporates revenues and costs and is refined and updated on a real time basis. A key element guiding the development of the annual budget and plan is that by Federal Law UDC is required to have a balanced budget. We use revenue projections to guide our overall resource allocation in the budget. Revenue Projections The following table is from our PPM and shows revenue projections from FY2011 through FY2015. The FY2011 numbers are from our Approved and Authorized Budget. In developing these projections, the Manager of Financial Planning and Analysis worked closely with various key individuals in the University (e.g., head of Sponsored Research for Federal Grants, head of University Advancement for advancement revenue). The tuition and student fee model is based upon detailed data regarding enrollment by type of student and corresponding revenue and fees.

The University is seeking to diversify and grow its revenue base. A description of the main University revenue sources is below:

Local Appropriation of $62 million from the DC Government has been stable for the past year. We believe that UDC is well supported by the DC government and will continue to receive at least this amount for the foreseeable future.

UDC has strong support from the current head of the District of Columbia City Council, Chairman Vincent Gray (the presumptive mayor) who has publicly committed his support to UDC as one of his prime objectives. UDC is recognized as a key component for the success of the overall education system of the District of Columbia. With strong support from both the future mayor and city council, we are confident that the local appropriation support funds will be a consistent part of the overall University operating budget. The FY2011 local subsidy is 42% of the Base Budget compared to 47% in FY2009. As the University continues to diversify and grow its revenue sources (i.e. auxiliary services, leases) the University will become less dependent on the local subsidy. UDC’s exemption from District-wide budgets cuts in FY2010 and FY 2011 is evidence of this strong district government support. In October 2010, the District Council exempted UDC from a measure that called for a $6 million District budget cut.

Revenue Projections Summary FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15Unrestricted Funds

Local Appropriation 62,070,000 62,070,000 62,070,000 62,070,000 62,070,000 Special Purpose Funds 54,331,432 53,231,408 56,840,578 60,008,253 63,026,812

Unrestricted Funds Subtotal 116,401,432 115,301,408 118,910,578 122,078,253 125,096,812 Restricted Funds

Federal Grants 28,631,211 30,926,209 35,130,584 40,086,321 45,934,740 Private Grants 1,899,926 2,184,915 2,512,652 2,889,550 3,322,982

Restricted Funds Subtotal 30,531,137 33,111,124 37,643,236 42,975,871 49,257,722 Total 146,932,569 148,412,531 156,553,814 165,054,124 174,354,534

8

Additional evidence of support from the City is the generous financial funding we have received for our capital budget, including over $30 million for a new Student Center.

Federal Grants are projected to continuously grow in the next five years for a number of

reasons. UDC has recently developed a new Office of Sponsored Research to seek and develop research grants for the University. We also have new leadership under the new dean of graduate studies and a new scholarship policy for graduate students. Beyond sponsored research grants, increases in federal financial aid are expected as tuition revenue grows.

Private Grants are projected to increase due to the University’s transformation and expanded

development efforts to engage foundations and private donors to help promulgate the UDC mission. However, we project that private grants will still remain a small portion of the University budget.

Special Purpose Revenue consists of the University’s self generated revenue from a number of

sources (excluding the local subsidy and grant funds). Special Purpose Revenue has a FY2011 proposed budget of $54.3 million.

From FY2010, most of the special purpose revenue growth is expected to come from an increase in tuition revenue driven by enrollment growth. Currently CCDC’s annual tuition rate is $2,400 for all students while UDC’s tuition rate is $6,380 for DC residents, $7,380 for metro area residents, and $13,380 for out-state students. Since most of the tuition growth is expected to come from CCDC, the tuition revenue growth is projected to be stable but not as aggressive as enrollment growth. Detailed enrollment projections are discussed below. A new Capital Campaign is expected to result in increased revenue.

Expense Projections

The following tables show a summary of our expense budget and projections. We have shown these both in high-level expense categories as well as by key program area.

Special Purpose Revenue FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015Tuition (Net) 27,518,457 29,885,936 32,041,116 34,094,661 35,905,508 Inter-Governmental Services 10,901,047 10,901,047 10,901,047 10,901,047 10,901,047 Indirect Cost Recovery 1,233,964 1,295,662 1,360,445 1,428,468 1,499,891 Endowment and Investment income 181,169 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Post Secondary

Academic Other (Con. Ed, WFD, etc.) 1,955,504 2,151,054 2,366,159 2,602,775 2,863,053 Student Fees 5,144,656 5,592,618 5,993,720 6,392,866 6,820,245 Scholarships 1,300,000 1,332,500 1,365,813 1,399,958 1,434,957 Auxiliary Services 5,933,254 1,413,040 1,897,876 2,008,100 2,125,080 Advancement 163,381 359,550 614,403 880,378 1,177,031 Post Secondary Subtotal 14,496,795 10,848,762 12,237,970 13,284,077 14,420,366

Total 54,331,432 53,231,408 56,840,578 60,008,253 63,026,812

9

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15Personnel Services

Salaries & Wages 82,282,239 83,105,061 87,260,314 91,623,330 97,120,730 Fringe Benefits 20,570,560 20,776,265 21,815,079 22,905,832 24,280,182

Subtotal 102,852,798 103,881,326 109,075,393 114,529,162 121,400,912 Non-Personnel Services 44,079,771 44,520,568 47,191,803 50,023,311 52,524,476 Total Expenses 146,932,569 148,401,895 156,267,195 164,552,473 173,925,388

Expenses FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015ACADEMIC AFFAIRS 72,704,254 72,527,074 76,532,926 81,647,364 87,955,986 AGENCY FINANCIAL OPERATIONS 4,749,625 4,730,060 4,811,407 4,921,063 5,052,154 AGENCY MANAGEMENT 31,549,451 32,075,176 32,828,177 34,257,603 35,322,970 CCDC 12,358,326 13,591,735 14,067,387 14,635,413 15,279,290 EXECUTIVE DIRECTION 1,793,498 1,774,038 1,804,548 1,845,675 1,894,841 STUDENT AFFAIRS 20,368,572 20,317,008 22,777,701 23,721,790 24,802,718 UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT 3,408,843 3,386,805 3,445,050 3,523,566 3,617,429 Total 146,932,569 148,401,895 156,267,195 164,552,473 173,925,388

10

3. Develop a realistic enrollment projection model based on past performance rather than on the hope that future improvements will spur enrollment growth.

In Fall 2009 the University reversed the enrollment decline that it experienced from 2005 to 2008. UDC enrollment continued to grow with an increase of 8% in Spring 2010 compared to Fall 2009; this was the first time in University history that spring enrollment was higher than the previous fall semester. By Fall 2010, University enrollment increased 12% from Fall 2009 to 5,875 students (headcount).

CCDC’s enrollment increased from 1,779 students in Fall 2009 to 2,671 students in Fall 2010. This 50% annual growth rate significantly exceeded our previous projections submitted in the June PRR. With the new 801 North Capital Street and opening of the South Dakota Avenue Center, CCDC’s enrollment is projected to continue to grow aggressively in the next few years. For your reference, we have attached previous information provided to the District City Council on CCDC’s enrollment growth plan.

Flagship Undergraduate enrollment declined by 11% from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010. It is expected that the strong increase in CCDC enrollment will have a positive impact on the flagship enrollment as CCDC students return to pursue their bachelor’s degrees at the flagship. Additionally, the University is dedicating resources to improving its student retention. In a significant effort toward improving UDC’s success rates, the University has entered into a major, 3.5-year contract with external consultants, Noel-Levitz. This top-ranked firm is noted for its work with higher education institutions, and will help UDC address its critical enrollment, retention, and persistence needs. Noel Levitz is assessing University retention, making recommendations, and assisting with the implementation of new processes for recruitment, marketing, enrollment persistence, financial aid, and retention. For these reasons, we believe that the current Flagship undergraduate enrollment decline is temporary. Our revised model reflects this decline and assumes flat enrollment until FY2013, at which point, we believe that enrollment growth will return.

Flagship Graduate enrollment exceeded our initial projections and increased by 9% from Fall

2009 to Fall 2010. The main reasons attributable to the enrollment growth are the new scholarship policy and the new graduate programs. In Spring 2010, the University Board of Trustees approved a new Graduate Scholarship program for full-time graduate students. Additionally, several new graduate level schools and programs are developing, including the Center of Urban Education. The new graduate centers (and graduate programs) along with the new scholarship policy will continue to increase graduate school enrollment.

The UDC Law School has been rated nationally as one of the best law schools in public interest

law and is the most affordable law school in the region. The Law School exceeded the original projections and grew 16% from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010. Currently, the UDC law School has a high volume of applications and a long waiting list. Additionally, a new part-time program opened in Fall 2009. For these reasons, we project that the UDC Law School will continue to grow aggressively in the next three to five years.

The table below shows the detail of enrollment growth from Fall 2008 to the current Fall 2010 semester. In Fall 2009, CCDC opened and the undergraduate student body split into the Flagship and Community College (as evinced in the table below from Fall 2008 to Fall 2009).

11

Adjustments were recently made to our enrollment projections based on Fall 2010 actual enrollment. The following charts show the revised enrollment projections for both headcount and FTEs.

Headcount Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010CCDC 0 1,779 2,335 2,672Flagship

Undergraduate (Flagship) 4,484 2,991 2,875 2,659Graduate 219 190 176 207

Flagship Subtotal 4,703 3,181 3,051 2,866Law School 254 291 291 337Total 4,957 5,251 5,677 5,875

5,595 5,367 5,170 4,957 5,251 5,850

6,320 6,692

7,125 7,622

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

AY06 AY07 AY08 AY09 AY10 AY11 AY12 AY13 AY14 AY15

UDC Enrollment (Headcount)Fall Semester

Total

Undergraduate Total

Undergraduate (Flagship)

CCDC

Law School

Graduate

3,527 3,493 3,432 3,356 3,584

3,959 4,256

4,487 4,765

5,081

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

AY06 AY07 AY08 AY09 AY10 AY11 AY12 AY13 AY14 AY15

UDC Enrollment (FTE)Fall Semester

Total

Undergraduate Total

Undergraduate (Flagship)

CCDC

Law School

Graduate

12

Headcount AY10 AY11 AY12 AY13 AY14 AY15CCDC 1,779 2,672 3,073 3,380 3,718 4,090Undergraduate (Flagship) 2,991 2,639 2,639 2,639 2,692 2,773Graduate 190 207 217 228 240 252Law School 291 332 391 445 476 508Undergraduate Total 4,770 5,311 5,712 6,019 6,410 6,862Flagship Total 3,472 3,178 3,247 3,312 3,407 3,532Total 5,251 5,850 6,320 6,692 7,125 7,622

FTE AY10 AY11 AY12 AY13 AY14 AY15CCDC 1,129 1,683 1,935 2,128 2,341 2,575Undergraduate (Flagship) 2,059 1,831 1,831 1,831 1,868 1,924Graduate 122 149 156 164 172 181Law School 273 296 334 363 383 401Undergraduate Total 3,188 3,514 3,766 3,960 4,209 4,499Flagship Total 2,454 2,276 2,321 2,358 2,424 2,506Total 3,584 3,959 4,256 4,487 4,765 5,081

13

4. Provide a Substantive Change Request for new Community College locations The University should file the appropriate Substantive Change Request with the Commission in order to confirm CCDC’s status as an additional location of the University and hence allow its students to be eligible for Title IV funds On June 29, 2010, the University of the District of Columbia submitted a formal Substantive Change request to Middle States regarding additional locations. Following this request, the University was asked to provide a letter by September 30, 2010, indicating whether the additional locations had commenced operations. The official letter, dated September 30, noted that out of the three locations, two locations began offering courses in early September. The third location will begin operating in Spring 2011.

14

5. Provide multiple measures of assessment to assess the effectiveness of the University’s financial health.

The University continually monitors and measures the effectiveness and health of the University financial situation through the following:

Actual Revenue and Expenditures vs. Budget Report. The University constantly monitors and analyzes the actual revenue versus budget performance. The overall University performance and program level performance is reviewed by the key finance team on a monthly basis and with the Finance and Budget committee of the Board on a periodic basis. Each Vice President and department head receives a monthly budget report detailing their individual department expenditures against budget by fund and expense. With the imminent implementation of Banner, the VPs and managers will be able to access this data directly. In addition, the university analyzes enrollment data every semester and uses the comprehensive model to estimate the tuition revenue. This estimation is then compared with the actual revenue collected and revenue projected. The variance is analyzed and adjustments are made to the projections and current budget.

University Investment Portfolio. The University’s investment portfolio is managed by outside portfolio managers. Investment performance is reviewed by the Finance Team and with the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees on a regular basis to ensure that investment managers are staying within the Investment Policy Guidelines. This review includes an analysis of performance versus key benchmarks.

Financial Statement Review. The University Finance team produces a monthly financial statement package that includes the Statement of Net Assets and the Income Statement. This is reviewed internally and then presented and reviewed with the Finance and Budget Committee of the Board at periodic meetings.

Liquidity risk/Cash position. The University has an effective line of credit with the District Government. The cash is currently managed by the Treasury Department of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.

Capital Budget. The capital budget is closely monitored by dedicated capital budget staff and is

reviewed by the Office of Campus Services on a regular basis.

Performance Metrics. With the implementation of the Banner system, the University is developing a series of Key Performance Indicators and will be working with the Finance team to implement these metrics. These metrics will address financial reporting performance metrics, transaction processing, procurement activity, student financial services, and risk management issues. Prior to Banner, the University was previously a part of the District-wide accounting system.

15

6. UDC should submit data from its first round of program reviews, begun in Fall 2009.

Academic Program Reviews

CONFIDENTIAL. DRAFT ONLY. THIS DATA IS A FIRST LOOK AT RAW DATA.

The top five products of the academic degree-program reviews will include:

Qualitative and quantitative review of all University degree programs and identification of strengths and weaknesses of individual programs as well as systemically across the University;

Status decisions about every Bachelors and Masters degree program at the University for the foreseeable future including whether programs should be expanded, terminated or significantly reconstituted;

Identification of target goals for all remaining programs in terms of enrollments, degree obtainment, and qualitative measures, and development and implementation of program-specific strategies for improvement to help achieve these goals;

Identification and implementation of a select number of cross-cutting improvement strategies designed to strengthen the capacity and performance of all academic programs and the division of academic affairs more broadly;

Market-testing of potential program changes and new programs, and identification of new programs that build off of existing strengths and are in areas of high student and employer demand.

DEGREE PROGRAM

ENROLLMEN

T SIZE/TREN

DS

DEM

AND

MARKET

SHARE

RETEN

TION/G

RADUATION

TEACHING EFFICIENCY/PRODUCTIVITY

OVERALL DATA RATING

INSTRUCTION (self)

CURRICULU

M (self)

DISTINCTIVEN

ESS (self)

RELEV

ANCE TO

MISSION (self)

SUMMARY REC

OMMEN

DATION (self)

Administration of Justice

Architecture

Art

Biology

16

Chemistry

Early Childhood Education

Elementary Education

English*

Environmental Science

French

Graphic Communications

Graphic Design

Health Education

History

Mass Media

Mathematics*

Music*

Nursing

Nutrition and Food Science

Physics

Political Science

Psychology

Social Work

Sociology

Spanish

Special Education

Speech and Language Pathology

Theater Arts

Urban Studies

Accounting

Business Management

Computer Information and Systems Science

Economics

Finance

Marketing

Procurement and Public Contracting

17

Civil Engineering

Computer Science

Electrical Engineering

Information Technology

Mechanical Engineering

Early Childhood Education (M)

Mathematics (M)

Special Education (M)

Speech and Language Pathology (M)

Cancer Biology, Prevention and Control (M)

Counseling (M)

English Composition and Rhetoric (M)

Business Administration (M)

Public Administration (M)

Yellow = Strength

White = Adequate

Red = Weakness

* Due to significant contextual factors, program ratings may not reflect the full contribution/value of the program to UDC, students, and the community

Key considerations that could alter ratings/reccommendations include:

Composition of program majors of full vs part time students

Composition of program majors of degree vs. non degree seeking students

Untangling if program ratings due to level of faculty resources or vice versa

Current/future flexibility to change personnel and delivery modalities

Community college formation, expansion, and funnel programs

Changing student population demographics and external conditions

18

7. UDC should submit data from its first round of assessment of its new core curriculum.

Assessing the New General Education Curriculum Consistent ongoing assessment and program review are vital to the quality and sustainability of the new General Education (GE) Program. The new GE program was initiated in fall 2010. The 13 course curriculum is being introduced over a four-year cycle culminating with the second of two required capstone courses in spring 2014. Five new courses are being introduced this academic year -- three courses were introduced this semester and two new courses will be introduced in spring 2011. Assessment data on student satisfaction and student achievement for the first set of courses offered this fall 2010 will be available mid-spring 2011.

University of the District of Columbia

Periodic Review Report Response

Appendices

Appendices Table of Contents

I. CCDC Plan for Enrollment Growth

II. Fiscal Impact Statement Samples a. Graduate Student Scholarship Program b. Master of Laws (LL. M.) Program c. Center for Urban Education

III. UDC Planning and Projection Model Sample UDC Undergraduate Tuition & Fee Projection Section

CCDC Plan for Enrollment Growth As the only community college in the District of Columbia, CCDC has a considerable market. There is already a 50% enrollment increase from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010. Enrollment is projected to grow significantly from a combination of the following factors:

Community college enrollment is increasing both nationally and regionally Montgomery College’s credit hour enrollment increased 14.3% from 2004 to

2008, which is 102.3% of their original projection.1 Data from NOVA indicated similar enrollment growth of 14% from 2004 to

2008.2 At the national level, full-time enrollment at U.S. community colleges

increased 24.1% in a 2-year time period from fall 2007 to fall 2009.3 Trends indicate regional community colleges lack the sufficient capacity to meet

student enrollment demands. For instance, NOVA lost 1,200 to 2,000 students each semester from Summer 2008 to Spring 2009 due to limited course availability. If 20% of these students enrolled at CCDC, it would result in 240 to 400 additional students.

CCDC has applied to participate in Achieving the Dream Colleges, a national initiative to increase student success at community colleges. Data show that schools in the initiative have significantly increased both enrollment and retention rate.

CCDC is unique in the regional community college market because its Practical Nursing Program (with room for further growth) and the new Fashion Merchandising Program are not available at the other three community colleges.

In 2008, there were about 3,200 DC Public School and Charter School high school seniors. Of the 3,200 students, only 1,500 of the students went on to college using DC Tag funds.4 If even a small percentage of these students enrolled in CCDC, and CCDC is able to reach those students who may have abandoned the idea of college, it would result in meeting and surpassing our enrollment projections.

Other factors that will contribute to enrollment growth include: Anticipated recapture of half of the 128 students who attended Montgomery

College, Prince George’s Community College, and Northern Virginia Community College in 2009-2010 using DC Tag funds

High School dual-enrollment and community based dual-enrollment Outreach towards a currently untapped adult market of students who have

finished their GEDs, but have not completed further education. Outreach towards an adult market of adults who have some college

experience, but no college degree Increased population of college-ready high school graduates due to CCDC’s

college preparedness efforts with local high schools Pathway Alignment between Workforce Development and Lifelong Learning

program and other partnerships (e.g. JobCorp) that will transition individuals from workforce training to associate degree programs

Outreach towards Latino and Asian subgroups 1 Montgomery College Academic Year Student Faculty Ratio report, May 2008. http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/inplrsh/OIRA%20Other%20Files/TIP/Enrollment/Student-Faculty_Ratio_AY2008.pdf 2 Northern Virginia Community College Annual Student Enrollment Report. http://www.nvcc.edu/about-nova/directories--offices/administrative-offices/oir/nova-data/actualprojectedannualFTESforcampusesandthecollege0415.pdf 3 http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/News/articles/Documents/ccenrollmentsurge2009.pdf 4 OSSE Data on DCTAG Students.

Fiscal Impact Statement

TO: Joseph L. Askew, Jr.

Chairperson, Board of Trustees FROM: Steven Graubart Managing Director of Finance DATE: February 4, 2010 SUBJECT: Graduate Student Scholarship Program

The proposed Graduate Student Scholarship Program will allow UDC to attract full-time graduate students with support packages comparable to those offered by other universities. This program would offer the following benefits to full time graduate students awarded assistantships or externally funded, prestigious fellowships.

Non DC resident graduate assistants will pay the lower DC resident tuition rate. Teaching assistants and graduate assistants will receive stipends. Teaching assistants will receive full scholarships to cover the in-state tuition and mandatory fees. Research assistant positions will be offered only if grants are available to cover the scholarship;

therefore RA stipends were not included in the cost analysis. There will be a benefit to the University in that there will be a reduced need for adjunct faculty as

the teaching assistants substitute for some of these requirements.

We developed a set of projections as to the potential enrollment, revenue and cost effects of the proposed resolution.

The projection assumes that UDC will increase its full time graduate enrollment from the current 96 students to 130 in FY 2011. This enrollment is projected to increase further to 319 by FY 2014. The graduate program enrollment is expected to grow at this rate for four reasons:

several new Master’s degree programs are in development and doctoral programs are in planning; the University has contracted with Noel-Levitz to upgrade recruitment and retention processes to

align with best practice nationwide; the scholarship program will enable some part-time students to become full-time; this scholarship program will make the UDC graduate programs more affordable and competitive

to attract students.

Confid

entia

l

The following are the key results from the analysis:

The tuition revenue from this enrollment increase is projected to be $323K in FY2011 and growing to exceed $2.1 million in FY2014.

It is projected that there will be 52 Graduate Assistant Positions in FY2011 growing to 143 by FY2014.

The foregone tuition revenue by providing resident rates for current non-resident graduate students is projected to be $131k.

It is assumed that the increase in the number of students will not require additional faculty resources in the near term, because most graduate programs are well below their current enrollment capacity in the graduate classes.

In later years, additional faculty will be needed to teach additional courses, supervise graduate theses and dissertations, and conduct scholarly research. The large positive revenue balance in these years would support these positions.

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014F/T Enrollment W/ Program 96 130 175 236 319F/T Enrollment W/O Program 96 96 96 96 96Total Graduate Assistant Positions 0 52 70 106 143Tuition Revenue from Enrollment Increase $323,778 $760,878 $1,326,941 $2,109,390Foregone Tuition for Current Non DC GA students ($131,600) ($131,600) ($131,600) ($131,600)Net Tuition Revenue Incremental $192,178 $629,278 $1,195,341 $1,977,790

The following table summarizes the potential revenue and cost of the program.

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014Net Tuition Revenue Incremental $192,178 $629,278 $1,195,341 $1,977,790Tuition Scholarships for Teaching Assistant ($125,252) ($169,090) ($228,272) ($308,167)Stipend Cost for GA and TA ($264,384) ($356,918) ($602,300) ($813,105)Adjunct Replacement Savings $198,288 $267,689 $361,380 $487,863Incremental Income/Cost $830 $370,959 $726,149 $1,344,382

The above analysis does not include potential grant funded revenue which will result from the increased graduate-level resources of the program. These grants will provide both grant funded equipment and indirect cost revenue. Based on the enrollment projection and other cost estimation, the program will be self-supported from the first year. As the program attracts more students to enroll starting in the second year, higher revenue from the program is expected. Details of enrollment and other assumptions can be found in Appendix A.

Confid

entia

l

Risks and Mitigation Risk Mitigation Strategies Enrollment growth is not realized, resulting the proposed program not being self-funded. If there is no growth in enrollment, the cost of

the program will be $273k. If enrollment growth is 10% (19 incremental

FTE) the program is projected to cost $195k in the first year, $108K in the second year, and $84k in the third year. Incremental income is expected from the fourth year of the program.

Aggressive recruitment to achieve enrollment targets. UDC has contracted with Noel-Levitz for assistance with recruitment, enrollment, and retention. Program by program realistic graduate admissions targets are consistent with these projections.

Publicizing the graduate-student support policy and opportunities (assistantships to be awarded competitively and available in all master’s degree programs.

Fewer graduate assistant positions would be offered.

Funding would have to come through reduction of other costs.

Details of the program plan can be found in Appendix B.

Confid

entia

l

Appendix A: Enrollment and Tuition Revenue Projection Enrollment and Tuition Summary 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014W/O Graduate Assistant ProgramF/T Enrollment 96 96 96 96 96P/T Enrollment 93 93 93 93 93Total Enrollment 189 189 189 189 189Enrollment Growth Rate 0% 0% 0% 0%

Net Tuition Revenue 1,718,520$ 1,718,520$ 1,718,520$ 1,718,520$ 1,718,520$ W/ Graduate Assistant ProgramF/T Enrollment 96 130 175 236 319P/T Enrollment 93 93 93 93 93Total Enrollment 189 223 268 329 412F/T Enrollment Growth Rate 35% 35% 35% 35%

Net Tuition Revenue 1,718,520$ 1,910,698$ 2,347,798$ 2,897,411$ 3,679,860$ Incremental Tuition Revenue -$ 192,178$ 629,278$ 1,178,891$ 1,961,340$ Appendix B: Program Plan Graduate Assistant Type by Title 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014Research Assistant 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%Graduate Assistant 5% 5% 5% 10% 10%Teaching Assistant 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%External Fellowships 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Total 40% 40% 40% 45% 45%

Graduate Assistant Type by Working Hours 20 Hour 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%15 Hour 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%10 Hour 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%Average 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Graduate Assistant Annual Salary20 Hour 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,00015 Hour 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,00010 Hour 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Con

fiden

tial

Fiscal Impact Statement

TO: Joseph L. Askew, Jr.

Chairperson, Board of Trustees FROM: Steven Graubart Managing Director of Finance DATE: June 7, 2010 SUBJECT: Master of Laws (LL.M.) Program The proposed Master of Laws (LL.M.) program will prepare attorneys (with two plus years of experience) to become clinical legal educators and leaders in the public interest bar. This program will help strengthen the University of the District of Columbia Law School’s Clinical Program and its commitment to public interest law. Along with coursework in public interest law and clinical pedagogy, LL.M. students will take on the role of clinical instructors. An LL.M. student will be assigned to one of UDC Law School’s in-house clinics where he or she will help supervise J.D. students. LL.M. Students will also continue to develop clinical teaching skills by assisting in teaching clinical seminars. The total cost of the program is estimated at $192K for both Year 1 and Year 2 of the program. This program will be launched with 3 to 6 LL.M. students, who will each receive an annual stipend of $49,667 plus benefits (valued at $11,424) for a total fellowship value of $61,091. There will be no tuition charge. All costs in FY2011 will be covered by funds already included in the operating budget of the Law School. The program projects 3 students for the first two years of this program, with enrollment growth in later years as the program develops and additional funding sources are identified. There are no new financial obligations in regard to staffing for the LL.M. program. The program will commence with three instructors/clinical fellows who are already funded to teach in the clinical program. These additional faculty members will begin in Fall 2010. The group seminar and individual tutorials will be taught by existing clinical and doctrinal faculty members in two-six hours blocks. There will be no need to reduce any faculty members’ teaching load or other obligations to accommodate LL.M. students’ coursework. Based on the enrollment projection and cost estimation, the program will be fully supported by funds already allocated from the University.

Confid

entia

l

Expenditures Detailed Breakdown Academic Year 1 Academic Year 2*

Instructional Salaries $0 $0

Support Services $0 $0

Administrative Services

Program Director** $4,615 $4,615

Administrative Assistant** $2,250 $2,250

Supplies $1,500 $1,500

Student Financial Aid

Fellowship Grant Salaries*** $149,001 $149,001

Fellowship Benefits $34,272 $34,272

Other $0 $0

Total $191,638 $191,638

*Projected expenditures

**Additional 5% increase in current staff salaries for additional responsibilites of this program

*** No salary increase for the first two years

Risks and Mitigation

Risks Mitigation Strategies As the program develops, additional costs may be incurred that currently allocated funds may not be sufficient to cover.

Enrollment numbers and fellowship salaries can be capped until appropriate funding sources are developed. The Law School will re-evaluate staffing and costs as the program develops.

Confid

entia

l

Financial Analysis

1

Center for Urban Education The proposed Center for Urban Education (Center) is to serve as the center of all University graduate education programs. The Center will offer graduate level degrees and professional development programs. The envisioned programs in the Center will be phased in during the first five years. The net cost (expenses less revenue) of the proposed Center is projected to be $488K in FY2011, $306K in FY2012, $466K in FY2013, and $470K in FY 2014. Current resources already allocated to Academic Affairs, including TITLE III funds, will be used to fund the Center. Further growth and development of the Center is contingent upon the availability of external funding resources. Background details about the Center programs can be found in Appendix A. Detailed financial analysis can be found in Appendix B. Detailed data tables and key assumptions underlying this analysis can be found in Appendix C.

Confid

entia

l

2

Appendix A Program Description and Analysis

Program Description The University of the District of Columbia (UDC) is positioning itself to become a recognized leader in education reform through the launch of its Center for Urban Education (Center). The Center plans to become a major player in DC’s education reform effort and will tailor its programs to meet the demands of high-poverty, high-need schools throughout the District. The success of this Center would significantly enhance the University’s reputation, visibility, and funding. Consistent with the University’s land-grant mission, the Center will engage in three primary program dimensions: Academics, Research, and Direct Service. All Center units will be involved in all three dimensions, but with different balance and intensity.

Academics. Academics are the primary role of the Urban Teacher Academy and the School Leadership Academy. The Urban Teacher Academy is the centerpiece of the Center’s education program and will offer master degree and professional development programs for aspiring and current teachers. The School Leadership Academy is an intensive, fourteen-month residency program to prepare in-service teachers and administrators to become principals of high-need public schools.

Research. The primary locus of research is in the Institute for Urban Education Research and Policy. This unit is a research institute dedicated to conducting research on student learning, pedagogy, and leadership development, and it would organize the Conference on Urban Education, an annual conference that researches best practices and issues in urban education. The Institute anticipates offering research courses that will lead to a PhD in Urban Education. Research would be funded by grants and contracts.

Direct Service. The Direct Service function is primarily performed by the proposed UDC School

Improvement and Innovation Program and the existing Early Childhood Leadership Institute (ECLI), which will manage the existing UDC Child Development Center and the Early Childhood Program. The Child Development Center is the existing daycare center that will be incorporated into the Center and will highlight teaching methods taught in the Early Childhood Program. The School Improvement and Innovation Program will include grant-funded partnerships with D.C. Public Schools and Public Charter Schools, as well potentially the operation of a demonstration school to highlight ideal teaching/learning practices. Operation of this school is expected to be financially self supporting. ECLI is grant funded, including scholarship support for students taking undergraduate courses, so its financial projections are covered in the FIS for the B.A. in Human Development.

Confid

entia

l

3

Appendix B Program Analysis

Tuition Revenue/Enrollment Total enrollment (Headcount) is projected at 15 students for FY2011, increasing to 125 students in FY2014.

This analysis assumes that 1/3 of graduate students in the Urban Teachers Academy will have content-area bachelor’s degrees from UDC, and will receive a tuition scholarship to pursue the MAT and acquire a K-12 teaching credential. Without these University scholarships, tuition revenues would be proportionally greater than projected. Total tuition revenue is projected to be $95K in FY2011 and grow to $982K in FY2014. Tuition details can be found in Appendix B. Grants Grant revenue included in the model consists of the amount needed to support staff and activities that depend on grants (e.g. the Institute of Urban Education Research and Policy and the School Improvement and Innovation Program). In addition, 25% of potential grants identified by the departments are included to reflect the component of likely grants that could cover the base scope (including indirect cost revenues). Total grants revenue is projected to be about $12K in FY2011 and grow to $802K in FY2014. Expenses Total Center expenses are projected to grow from $595K in FY2011 to $2.25 million in FY2014.

PS. PS expenses include salary and benefits for an Associate Dean, directors of the program, faculty, and administrative staff.

NPS. NPS expenses include both general NPS and Contractual Service expenses for contractual personnel, such as mentor teachers, field directors, research assistants, etc.

Enrollment (headcount) Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Urban Teacher Academy

Graduate 0 15 35 50 65Teacher Residency 0 0 20 30 40

Institute of Urban Education Research and Policy 0 0 0 5 10School Leadership Academy (Graduate) 0 0 0 5 10Total Enrollment 0 15 55 90 125

Expenses Summary Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14PS

Salary 0 331,500 684,950 1,178,660 1,494,851Benefit 0 81,255 168,457 290,655 367,222Subtotal 0 412,755 853,407 1,469,315 1,862,072

NPSContractual Services 0 12,500 158,792 229,862 305,053General NPS 0 170,000 142,000 87,000 87,000Subtotal 0 182,500 300,792 316,862 392,053

Total 0 595,255 1,154,198 1,786,176 2,254,125

Confid

entia

l

4

University Funding Based on this analysis, the Center’s tuition and grants revenue will not be sufficient to cover the Center’s projected expenses. Academic Affairs plan to use current resources, including Title III grants and funds reprioritized as the results of program review are implemented, to meet the funding needs of the Center. Total university funding needed to support the Center is projected to be $488K in FY2011, $306K in FY2012, $466K in FY2013, and $470K in FY 2014. The table below shows the detail of the funding analysis.

As the Center develops and becomes successful, grant revenues to expand the scope, impact, and reputation above the baseline plan presented could grow significantly. Risks and Mitigation Risks Mitigation Strategies Available Title III funding is not sufficient to cover the costs of the program.

Reprogramming of the Academic Affairs’ budget to help cover costs.

The program does not bring in the projected external funding (federal grants, local grants, private grants).

If external funds are less than projected, the Center’s growth will be delayed relative to match the funding amount brought in.

The Center will find a highly-qualified Associate Dean with strong fundraising abilities. The Center will focus heavily on increasing its visibility and reaching out to external funding sources.

Program costs for the Center are higher than anticipated.

Considerable budget has been estimated for start-up, to minimize this risk. Management will closely monitor the budget and stay within resources.

Enrollment projections are not reached. The Center will decrease hiring and expenditures to reduce costs.

Funding Resources Summary Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Total Expenses 0 595,255 1,154,198 1,786,176 2,254,125Funding

Tuition 0 95,000 411,667 696,667 981,667Grants 0 12,500 436,440 623,959 802,197University Funding (Title III and Other) 0 487,755 306,092 465,551 470,261Total Funding 0 595,255 1,154,198 1,786,176 2,254,125

Confid

entia

l

5

Appendix C Program Analysis Detailed Data Tables

Table C-1: Expenses

Table C-2: Tuition Revenue

Table C-3: Assumptions

Expenses Summary Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Salary

Associate Dean - 105,000 108,150 111,395 114,736

Director - 47,500 97,850 201,571 207,618

Admin. Staff - 100,000 103,000 212,180 218,545 Full-time faculty - 70,000 360,500 631,236 917,891

Adjunct faculty (classes) - 9,000 15,450 22,279 36,060 Total Salary - 331,500 684,950 1,178,660 1,494,851

Benefits - 81,255 168,457 290,655 367,222 Total PS - 412,755 853,407 1,469,315 1,862,072 NPS

Associate Dean's Office - 70,000 75,150 40,305 40,464 Urban Teachers Academy - 112,500 198,042 238,339 312,735

School Improvement and Innovation Program - - 7,150 7,305 7,464

Institute for Urban Education Research & Policy - - 20,450 25,914 26,391

School Leadership Academy - - - 5,000 5,000 Total NPS - 182,500 300,792 316,862 392,053 Total Cost - 595,255 1,154,198 1,786,176 2,254,125

Tuition Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Urban Teacher Academy* - 95,000 411,667 601,667 791,667

Institute of Urban Education Research and Policy - - - 47,500 95,000 School Leadership Academy - - - 47,500 95,000

Total Tuition - 95,000 411,667 696,667 981,667 * 1/3 of graduate students receive a MAT full-tuition waiver scholarship.

Assumptions: Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Salary

Associate Dean Salary 105,000$ 108,150$ 111,395$ 114,736$

Director Level Staff Salary 95,000$ 97,850$ 100,786$ 103,809$ Admin. Staff Salary 50,000$ 51,500$ 53,045$ 54,636$ New faculty salary (9 month) 70,000$ 72,100$ 74,263$ 76,491$ Adjunct Faculty Salary 3,000$ 3,090$ 3,183$ 3,278$

Full Time Employee Benefits 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%Adjunct Faculty Benefits 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%

Salary Increase Rate 3% 3% 3%Grants/Indirect Cost

Indirect cost rate 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%Contractual Services Cost

Other Contract Personnel 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,150$ 5,305$ 5,464$ Residency Ratio

DC Residents 64%Metropolitan Area Residents 10%

All Others 26%

* DC/Non DC split used here is the university average as of Fall 2009.

Confid

entia

l

6

Table C-4: Tuition and Fee Schedule

Tuition Schedule Current 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14Graduate

DC Residents 7,580$ 7,580$ 7,580$ 7,580$ 7,580$

Metropolitan Area Residents 8,580$ 8,580$ 8,580$ 8,580$ 8,580$ All Others 14,580$ 14,580$ 14,580$ 14,580$ 14,580$

Weighted Average Tuition 9,500$ 9,500$ 9,500$ 9,500$ 9,500$ Undergraduate

DC Residents 4,750$ 6,380$ 6,380$ 6,380$ 6,380$

Metropolitan Area Residents 5,680$ 7,380$ 7,380$ 7,380$ 7,380$

All Others 11,680$ 13,380$ 13,380$ 13,380$ 13,380$

Weighted Average Tuition 6,645$ 6,645 6,645 6,645 6,645

Confid

entia

l

UDC Undergraduate Tuition and Fee Projection Model

Key DataEnrollment Data 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Full Time HeadcountD.C. Residents 946 868 868 868 885 912

Metro. Area Residents 158 171 171 171 174 180All Others 345 268 268 268 273 282

Total 1,449 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,333 1,373Part Time Headcount

D.C. Residents 1,230 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,099 1,131Metro. Area Residents 179 163 163 163 166 171

All Others 133 92 92 92 94 97Total 1,542 1,332 1,332 1,332 1,359 1,399

Credit Hours Taken by Full D.C. Residents 12,919 12,192 12,192 12,192 12,436 12,809

Metro. Area Residents 2,205 2,441 2,441 2,441 2,490 2,565All Others 5,149 4,069 4,069 4,069 4,150 4,275

Total 20,273 18,702 18,702 18,702 19,076 19,648Credit Hours Taken by Part

D.C. Residents 8,499 7,140 7,140 7,140 7,283 7,501Metro. Area Residents 1,232 1,091 1,091 1,091 1,113 1,146

All Others 887 535 535 535 546 562Total 10,618 8,766 8,766 8,766 8,941 9,210

Full Time HeadcountD.C. Residents 923 868 868 868 885 912

Metro. Area Residents 153 171 171 171 174 180All Others 282 268 268 268 273 282

Total 1,358 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,333 1,373Part Time Headcount

D.C. Residents 1,179 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,099 1,131Metro. Area Residents 202 163 163 163 166 171

All Others 136 92 92 92 94 97

Fall

Page 1/4 Developed by The Office of Managing Director of Finance As of October 5th, 2010

All OthersTotal 1,517 1,332 1,332 1,332 1,359 1,399

Credit Hours Taken by Full D.C. Residents 12,771 12,192 12,192 12,192 12,436 12,809

Metro. Area Residents 2,194 2,441 2,441 2,441 2,490 2,565All Others 4,271 4,069 4,069 4,069 4,150 4,275

Total 19,236 18,702 18,702 18,702 19,076 19,648Credit Hours Taken by Part

D.C. Residents 7,873 7,140 7,140 7,140 7,283 7,501Metro. Area Residents 1,377 1,091 1,091 1,091 1,113 1,146

All Others 869 535 535 535 546 562Total 10,119 8,766 8,766 8,766 8,941 9,210

Credit Hours Taken By D.C. Residents 4,400 3,882 3,882 3,882 3,960 4,079

Metro. Area Residents 1,002 884 884 884 902 929All Others 501 442 442 442 451 464

Total 5,903 5,208 5,208 5,208 5,313 5,472Growth Rate -12% 0% 0% 2% 3%

Spring

Summer


Confid

entia

l


Tuition Rate 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Full Time ($/Term)

D.C. Residents 2,375.00$ 3,190.00$ 3,190.00$ 3,190.00$ 3,190.00$ 3,190.00$ Metro. Area Residents 2,840.00$ 3,690.00$ 3,690.00$ 3,690.00$ 3,690.00$ 3,690.00$

All Others 5,840.00$ 6,690.00$ 6,690.00$ 6,690.00$ 6,690.00$ 6,690.00$ Part Time ($/Credit)

D.C. Residents 197.92$ 265.83$ 265.83$ 265.83$ 265.83$ 265.83$ Metro. Area Residents 236.67$ 307.50$ 307.50$ 307.50$ 307.50$ 307.50$

All Others 486.67$ 557.50$ 557.50$ 557.50$ 557.50$ 557.50$ All Students

D.C. Residents 197.92$ 265.83$ 265.83$ 265.83$ 265.83$ 265.83$ Metro. Area Residents 236.67$ 307.50$ 307.50$ 307.50$ 307.50$ 307.50$

All Others 486.67$ 557.50$ 557.50$ 557.50$ 557.50$ 557.50$ Growth Rate 0% 0% 0% 0%Assumptions:

Mandatory Fee Schedule 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Full Time Students 310.00$ 310.00$ 310.00$ 310.00$ 310.00$ 310.00$ Part Time Students ($/Credit) 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$

Summer All Students 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$

Spring/Fall

Summer

Spring/Fall

Page 2/4 Developed by The Office of Managing Director of Finance As of October 5th, 2010Page 2/4 Developed by The Office of Managing Director of Finance As of October 5th, 2010

Confid

entia

l


Gross Tuition Revenue 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Tuition From Full Time Students

D.C. Residents 2,246,750$ 2,768,920$ 2,768,920$ 2,768,920$ 2,824,298$ 2,909,027$ Metro. Area Residents 448,720$ 630,990$ 630,990$ 630,990$ 643,610$ 662,918$

All Others 2,014,800$ 1,792,920$ 1,792,920$ 1,792,920$ 1,828,778$ 1,883,642$ Total 4,710,270$ 5,192,830$ 5,192,830$ 5,192,830$ 5,296,687$ 5,455,587$

Tuition From Part Time StudentsD.C. Residents 1,682,094$ 1,898,050$ 1,898,050$ 1,898,050$ 1,936,011$ 1,994,091$

Metro. Area Residents 291,573$ 335,483$ 335,483$ 335,483$ 342,192$ 352,458$ All Others 431,673$ 298,263$ 298,263$ 298,263$ 304,228$ 313,355$

Total 2,405,340$ 2,531,795$ 2,531,795$ 2,531,795$ 2,582,431$ 2,659,904$ Total Fall Tuition

D.C. Residents 3,928,844$ 4,666,970$ 4,666,970$ 4,666,970$ 4,760,309$ 4,903,119$ Metro. Area Residents 740,293$ 966,473$ 966,473$ 966,473$ 985,802$ 1,015,376$

All Others 2,446,473$ 2,091,183$ 2,091,183$ 2,091,183$ 2,133,006$ 2,196,996$ Total 7,115,610$ 7,724,625$ 7,724,625$ 7,724,625$ 7,879,118$ 8,115,491$

Tuition From Full Time StudentsD.C. Residents 2,192,125$ 2,768,920$ 2,768,920$ 2,768,920$ 2,824,298$ 2,909,027$

Metro. Area Residents 434,520$ 630,990$ 630,990$ 630,990$ 643,610$ 662,918$ All Others 1,646,880$ 1,792,920$ 1,792,920$ 1,792,920$ 1,828,778$ 1,883,642$

Total 4,273,525$ 5,192,830$ 5,192,830$ 5,192,830$ 5,296,687$ 5,455,587$ Tuition From Part Time Students


All Others 422,913$ 298,263$ 298,263$ 298,263$ 304,228$ 313,355$ Total 2 307 001$ 2 531 795$ 2 531 795$ 2 531 795$ 2 582 431$ 2 659 904$

Fall

Spring


Total 2,307,001$ 2,531,795$ 2,531,795$ 2,531,795$ 2,582,431$ 2,659,904$ Total Spring Tuition

D.C. Residents 3,750,323$ 4,666,970$ 4,666,970$ 4,666,970$ 4,760,309$ 4,903,119$ Metro. Area Residents 760,410$ 966,473$ 966,473$ 966,473$ 985,802$ 1,015,376$

All Others 2,069,793$ 2,091,183$ 2,091,183$ 2,091,183$ 2,133,006$ 2,196,996$ Total 6,580,526$ 7,724,625$ 7,724,625$ 7,724,625$ 7,879,118$ 8,115,491$

Tuition From Summer StudentsD.C. Residents 870,833$ 1,032,013$ 1,032,013$ 1,032,013$ 1,052,653$ 1,084,233$


Total 1,351,791$ 1,550,314$ 1,550,314$ 1,550,314$ 1,581,320$ 1,628,760$ D.C. Residents 8,550,000$ 10,365,953$ 10,365,953$ 10,365,953$ 10,573,272$ 10,890,470$

Metro. Area Residents 1,737,938$ 2,204,908$ 2,204,908$ 2,204,908$ 2,249,006$ 2,316,476$ All Others 4,759,989$ 4,428,703$ 4,428,703$ 4,428,703$ 4,517,277$ 4,652,796$

Total 15,047,927$ 16,999,564$ 16,999,564$ 16,999,564$ 17,339,555$ 17,859,742$

Total

Summer


Confid

entia

l


Mandatory Fee Revenue 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015Fees From Full Time Students

D.C. Residents 293,260$ 269,080$ 269,080$ 269,080$ 274,462$ 282,695$ Metro. Area Residents 48,980$ 53,010$ 53,010$ 53,010$ 54,070$ 55,692$

All Others 106,950$ 83,080$ 83,080$ 83,080$ 84,742$ 87,284$ Sub-Total 449,190$ 405,170$ 405,170$ 405,170$ 413,273$ 425,672$

Fees From Part Time StudentsD.C. Residents 254,970$ 214,200$ 214,200$ 214,200$ 218,484$ 225,039$

Metro. Area Residents 36,960$ 32,730$ 32,730$ 32,730$ 33,385$ 34,386$ All Others 26,610$ 16,050$ 16,050$ 16,050$ 16,371$ 16,862$ Sub-Total 318,540$ 262,980$ 262,980$ 262,980$ 268,240$ 276,287$

Total Fees From Fall StudentsD.C. Residents 548,230$ 483,280$ 483,280$ 483,280$ 492,946$ 507,734$


Total 767,730$ 668,150$ 668,150$ 668,150$ 681,513$ 701,958$ Fees From Full Time Students



Fees From Part Time StudentsD.C. Residents 236,190$ 214,200$ 214,200$ 214,200$ 218,484$ 225,039$

Metro. Area Residents 41,310$ 32,730$ 32,730$ 32,730$ 33,385$ 34,386$ All Others 26,070$ 16,050$ 16,050$ 16,050$ 16,371$ 16,862$ Sub-Total 303,570$ 262,980$ 262,980$ 262,980$ 268,240$ 276,287$

Total Fees From Spring Students

Fall

Spring


Total Fees From Spring StudentsD.C. Residents 522,320$ 483,280$ 483,280$ 483,280$ 492,946$ 507,734$


Total 724,550$ 668,150$ 668,150$ 668,150$ 681,513$ 701,958$ Fees From Summer Students




All Others 262,074$ 211,516$ 211,516$ 211,516$ 215,746$ 222,219$ Total 1,669,376$ 1,492,554$ 1,492,554$ 1,492,554$ 1,522,405$ 1,568,077$

Tuition + Mandatory Fee 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015D.C. Residents 9,752,550$ 11,448,978$ 11,448,978$ 11,448,978$ 11,677,958$ 12,028,297$

Metro. Area Residents 1,942,690$ 2,402,921$ 2,402,921$ 2,402,921$ 2,450,979$ 2,524,508$ All Others 5,022,063$ 4,640,219$ 4,640,219$ 4,640,219$ 4,733,024$ 4,875,014$

Total 16,717,303$ 18,492,118$ 18,492,118$ 18,492,118$ 18,861,960$ 19,427,819$

Summer

Total

Total


Confid

entia

l