OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS

In all simulations, we calculated costs per Student FTE broken down by Level. The reason for the breakdown by Level is because the effects of the various allocation strategies we used was to move the costs from Level to Level. The data presented below for each simulation compares the simulation with the UIS data for the participating colleges and universities.

Basic Simulation
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost	SCR Cost
GS	$4,058	$4,188	$4,698
Tech	$6,966	$7,200	$7,083
Bac	$6,420	$6,129	$6,812
Master's	$12,989	$12,310	$10,688
Doc	$15,212	$24,656	$13,057
Prof	$12,746	$12,229	$12,278

From this data we can see:

1. In the simulations, costs per FTE are generally higher than UIS costs at the lower levels because the number of FTEs is lower due to attrition that occurs in winter and spring terms. The number of FTEs per Level we had in the simulation is given below prior to Simulation 2.
2. Allocating by Student Credit Hours (SCRs) drives the costs even more to the lower levels.
3. Using Course Credit Hours (CCRs) causes the doctoral costs to increase by over 50%; further inspection shows that this is due to Individual Studies course sections, probably dissertation writing.

Simulation 3 (allocate the remainder of Schedule 5 by credit hour instead of salary) 
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost	SCR Cost
GS	$4,058	$4,169	$5,047
Tech	$6,966	$7,196	$7,071
Bac	$6,420	$6,022	$6,833
Master's	$12,989	$12,094	$9,501
Doc	$15,212	$26,884	$10,474
Prof	$12,746	$12,229	$12,278

The data from Simulation 3 is mostly unremarkable. When allocating by SCRs, using credit hours instead of salary exacerbates the movement of the costs to the lower levels. Allocating departmental overhead by CCRs doesn't make much sense intuitively.

Simulation 4 (allocate salaries of instructors who teach Individual Studies by number of courses)
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost
GS	$4,058	$4,206
Tech	$6,966	$7,198
Bac	$6,420	$6,218
Master's	$12,989	$13,247
Doc	$15,212	$20,687
Prof	$12,746	$12,253

This was our first attempt to give special attention to Individual Studies course sections. This simulation was done for CCRs only, since Individual Studies are naturally of little significance when allocating by SCRs. The effect of this change is to significantly lower the cost of doctoral instruction. However, so many instructors teach some Individual Studies that allocating by number of courses practically becomes the predominant means of allocation, rather than CCRs.

Simulation 5 (ignore Individual Studies in allocating instructor's salary by CCR)
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost
GS	$4,058	$4,338
Tech	$6,966	$7,195
Bac	$6,420	$6,647
Master's	$12,989	$12,300
Doc	$15,212	$15,596
Prof	$12,746	$12,240

This is another, somewhat desperate, attempt to find some reasonable way to deal with Individual Studies course sections when allocating by CCRs. The only rationale is that several colleges and universities use this technique in their faculty work load studies. The effect is to bring the doctoral costs very close to what they are in UIS. It is interesting to note that in the UIS Faculty Service Report, Credit Hours of Courses Assigned field, Individual Studies are not included in credit hours.

Simulation 6 (allocate instructor's salary within the department paying the instructor)
 

Basic Simulation			Simulation 6
Level	CCR Cost	SCR Cost	CCR Cost	SCR Cost
GS	$4,188	$4,698	$4,192	$4,684
Tech	$7,200	$7,083	$7,188	$7,096
Bac	$6,129	$6,812	$6,110	$6,797
Master's	$12,310	$10,688	$12,182	$10,541
Doc	$24,656	$13,057	$24,278	$12,920
Prof	$12,229	$12,278	$12,222	$12,222

This strategy had very little impact on the allocation of costs. Compare it to the Basic Simulation. However, our understanding is that statewide there are many cases of instructors teaching in a different department than pays them, and the cost to the campuses to prorate the salaries to all departments in which the instructor teaches is significant. This is a fairly important point because not prorating the salary to the proper department is what necessitates our allocating instructor's salary directly to the courses taught and requires the explicit link between the instructor's salary and the funding department. It is also why we must restrict the instructor's salary to the amounts that are included in the department's expense report, i.e., to the Instruction and General (I&G) costs.

Simulation 7 (summer and fall enrollments only with Individual Studies allocated as in Simulation 4)
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost
GS	$4,058	$3,982
Tech	$6,966	$6,813
Bac	$6,420	$6,008
Master's	$12,989	$12,632
Doc	$15,212	$20,736
Prof	$12,746	$12,706

This is the special treatment for Individual Studies with data comparable to UIS.

Simulation 8 (Not applicable)

Simulation 9 (summer and fall enrollments only with Individual Studies allocated as in Simulation 4, and Schedule 5 overhead allocated by SCR)
 

Level	UIS Cost	Simulation 9
GS	$4,058	$4,537
Tech	$6,966	$6,773
Bac	$6,420	$6,361
Master's	$12,989	$10,222
Doc	$15,212	$13,745
Prof	$12,746	$12,706

You can see that using SCRs for departmental overhead has a significant effect in driving the costs to the lower levels.

Simulation 10 (same as simulation 9 except weight the graduate CCRs by 2 in allocating the instructor's salary)
 

Level	UIS Cost	Simulation 10
GS	$4,058	$4,499
Tech	$6,966	$6,775
Bac	$6,420	$6,261
Master's	$12,989	$10,747
Doc	$15,212	$14,125
Prof	$12,746	$12,706

We were looking for a way to get the costs more in line with UIS and to give some weight to the assumed extra effort required for graduate instruction. The weighting had little effect.

Simulation 11 (use ranges of SCRs, and average with CCRs, also, use SCRs for the Schedule 5 overhead)
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost	SCR Range Cost	Average Cost
GS	$4,058	$4,499	$4,574	$4,536
Tech	$6,966	$6,755	$6,733	$6,744
Bac	$6,420	$6,300	$6,424	$6,362
Master's	$12,989	$10,041	$10,044	$10,043
Doc	$15,212	$15,654	$12,926	$14,290
Prof	$12,746	$12,675	$12,716	$12,696

Notice that for the ranged SCRs, costs are even higher at the lower levels than the SCR version of Simulation 2. This is the effect of using SCRs for the Schedule 5 overhead. All else being equal, ranges of SCRs will moderate the effect of SCRs. CCRs in this simulation does not drive the doctoral costs so high because of the counter effect of using SCRs for the departmental overhead. The ranges of SCRs we used were: Range 1, 0 - 10 SCRs; Range 2, 11 - 50; Range 3, 51 - 200; Range 4, 201 - 400; Range 5, 401 - 9999.

Simulation 12 (same as Simulation 11 except use salaries for Schedule 5 overhead for the CCR Simulation and special treatment for Individual Studies)
 

Level	UIS Cost	CCR Cost	SCR Range Cost	Average Cost
GS	$4,058	$3,982	$4,574	$4,278
Tech	$6,966	$6,792	$6,733	$6,762
Bac	$6,420	$6,008	$6,424	$6,216
Master's	$12,989	$12,632	$10,044	$11,338
Doc	$15,212	$20,736	$12,926	$16,831
Prof	$12,746	$12,706	$12,716	$12,711

This simulation seems to achieve many good things. Costs are fairly comparable to UIS and all constituencies seem to have some recognition. The down side is that it involves many strategies and is, therefore, not simple.

Descriptions of the Simulations

1. Basic Simulation: The compensation of the instructors is allocated to the Subject and Level of course sections that they teach based on the Course Credit Hours and Student Credit Hours in the section. This credit is adjusted in cases of less than full responsibility for the course section. The entire campus level yearly compensation is allocated to all courses taught in the year, independent of department and term. Instructors who teach any course section for zero credit hours have their compensation allocated based on the number of courses taught without regard to credit hours. The remainder of Schedule 5 expenses, after the Instructional Compensation is subtracted, is allocated among all courses offered by the department based on the allocation of the Instructional Compensation to these same courses. Schedule 4A expenses, except for POM, are allocated based on all term enrollments.
2. Using summer and fall data only: The basic simulation is modified to use only summer and fall courses taught data and enrollment data. The purpose of this is to narrow the focus of the simulation to the impact of using courses taught data rather than hours worked.
3. Allocating Schedule 5 by credit hours instead of by Instructional Compensation: The basic simulation is changed in regard to allocating the remainder of Schedule 5 after Instructional Compensation is subtracted. The change is to use the credit hours directly as the allocators rather than the Instructional Compensation associated with these credit hours.
4. Counting Individual Studies as zero Course Credit Hours: The Course Credit Hours version of the basic simulation is modified to treat Individual Studies sections the same as zero credit hour courses. This means that any instructor who teaches an Independent Studies section or one for zero credit hours has his or her Compensation allocated by the number of sections taught.
5. Not using Individual Studies in allocating by Course Credit Hours: The Course Credit Hours version of the basic simulation is modified to ignore Individual Studies sections in the allocation of the instructor's Compensation. If the instructor teaches only Individual Studies, her or his Compensation is distributed with the remainder of Schedule 5.
6. Allocating Instructional Compensation within the Department: The basic simulation is changed to allocate each instructor's compensation to the courses taught within the department paying the compensation.

Combinations of Allocation Strategies
7. Campus Level Allocation (i.e., not the one used in Simulation 6), Course Credit Hours (rather than Student Credit Hours) for allocating Instructor's Compensation, allocate the remainder of Schedule 5 based on compensation rather than Credit Hours, Summer/Fall only data (just for the simulation, not for production), Individual Studies as Zero Credit Hours (i.e., as in Simulation 4).
8. Special simulation to test the impact of ignoring the distribution of effort data in cases where we have more than one instructor assigned to a course section and distributing the load equally. The results showed that we do not need distribution data.
9. Campus Level Allocation (i.e., not the one used in Simulation 6), Course Credit Hours (rather than Student Credit Hours) for allocating Instructor's Compensation, allocate the remainder of Schedule 5 based on Student Credit Hours, Summer/Fall only data (just for the simulation, not for production), Individual Studies as Zero Credit Hours (i.e., as in Simulation 4).
10. Same as Simulation 9 except for Instructor's Compensation, for which we weight Graduate Level Course Credit by a factor of 2.
11. Three simulations, one based on CCRs, one based on ranges of SCRs, and the average of these two. Instructors who teach any course section for zero credit hours have their compensation allocated based on the number of courses taught without regard to credit hours in the CCR allocation, however, in SCR ranges, the zero credit hour case falls in with the lowest range. Both the CCR and SCR Range simulation use straight SCRs to allocate the remainder of Schedule 5.
12. The same as Simulation 11 except for the CCR simulation, salary is used to allocate the Schedule 5 overhead instead of SCRs, and instructors who teach any course Individual Studies section have their compensation allocated based on the number of courses taught without regard to credit hours.

1. Build Course Sections table, Faculty Compensation table, Schedule 5, and Schedule 4A with the input data from the institutions.

Allocate Instructor's Compensation to the courses that they teach.
2. Build table of Instructors who teach with credit hour load by summarizing the sections table. Note, this table has in it only the instructors who actually teach.
3. Add compensation column to the table from Step 2 by joining it to Instructor's Comp table, and summarize compensation at the campus, instructor level.
4. Add the CCR and SCR compensation to the Sections table. Use courses taught if the instructor teaches any zero credit courses.

Subtract Instructional Compensation from Schedule 5.
5. Flag each row in the compensation table to indicate which instructors actually teach any of the course sections in the sections table.
6. Summarize the compensation of instructors who actually teach any course sections by department from the Faculty Compensation table and add these as a new column to Schedule 5.

Allocate the remainder of Schedule 5 to Subject Code and Level.
7. Build tables containing the CCR and SCR compensation from Step 4, summarized by Department and by Department, Subject, and Level. These are the distribution numerators and denominator for the remainder of Schedule 5 costs.
8. Allocate Schedule 5 (minus Instructional Compensation) to Department, Subject, and Level, by multiplying the Schedule 5 Cost by the ratio of the Instructional Compensation for the Department, Subject and Level, to the Instructional Compensation for the whole Department.
9. Summarize the Schedule 5 costs to Subject and Level independent of Department.

Allocate Schedule 4a (except POM) to Subject Code and Level.
10. Summarize enrollments from the Sections table by Subject and Level for allocating Schedule 4A.
11. Summarize enrollments from the Sections table by campus for allocating Schedule 4A.
12. Allocate Schedule 4A expenses by multiplying the Schedule 4A expense by the ratio of enrollments in the Subject and Level to those on the campus. Use weighted enrollments for Library costs.

Compare Simulation to UIS.
13. Summarize the UIS RA input data by Level.
14. Summarize the Simulation data by Level.
15. Compare UIS to Simulation by Level.

Return to Meeting Notes, April 18, 1997

Return to HEI Front Door

http://regents.ohio.gov/hei/RA/notes/rasimdataosu41897.html
Last updated June 29, 1998