The 2024 Space Report submitted to the Board of Regents for review at the May 23rd special meeting is missing the utilization data that was provided in biennial Space Utilization Reports prior to 2022.  The Board should direct NSHE to compile a comprehensive Space Utilization Report this year to ensure that capital project requests submitted to the 2025 Nevada Legislature are justified by data and focused on our most critical needs.

 For decades, the Nevada System of Higher Education  compiled a biennial report on the  physical instructional and research space at each NSHE institution. The reports also calculated the time each of these spaces was utilized over the year.  It measured every institution’s utilization of physical space with the same yardstick and was a useful tool for assessing needs for additional space. The last full Space Utilization Report, however, was presented to the Board in May 2020.

NSHE institutions pivoted to online instruction starting in Spring 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.. In response, the Board accepted a trimmed-down version of the report without the utilization data, simply called a Space Report, in 2022. At the time, this made sense because many classes were taught online during that period

As of this May, however, all Nevada institutions have been operating at normal capacities for two full years. The study period for the 2024 Space Report, which is part of the May 23 special meeting of the Regents, was not affected by the pandemic. Nonetheless, NSHE submitted the “lite” version of the report.

The Space Utilization Reports give a relatively consistent and clear picture of how efficiently each institution operates its physical plant. Although no report is perfect and there may be anomalies requiring additional explanations or adjustments, it is  a useful tool for the Regents  when they are asked to approve new construction requests. The lite version of the report  shows the total amount of maintained space, but does not show where critical needs may exist or where space is underutilized. Without that information, Regents must rely on campus presidents providing their own subjective analyses of expansion needs. Space utilization may have changed permanently with increased online delivery of courses; such trends need to be tracked for good decision-making.

It is the Board’s duty to responsibly manage the System’s resources and any taxpayer money allocated for its operations. The comprehensive Space Utilization Report was a much better tool for informing the Regents about the need for additional space (or lack thereof) and directing the finite available funding toward meeting those needs that are most critical. 

At their May 23, 2024, meeting, the Nevada Board of Regents will consider a resolution to delegate their authority in litigation matters to the Chancellor. While Nevada laws permit such delegation, and several public bodies have adopted similar resolutions delegating litigation decisions to executive leadership, this proposal gives the Chancellor and the NSHE Chief General Counsel blanket authority over litigation decisions with little, if any, oversight by the Board. It only requires the Chancellor to consult with the Board Chair. There is no mandate that the two must agree. Similarly, there is no requirement to keep the other members of the Board informed. Alarmingly, the resolution states that the Chancellor would have the authority to make any decision “consistent with the advice of the Chief General Counsel.” That is, it appears to delegate real authority to the Chief General Counsel, not the Chancellor. 

There is no argument that delegation is often necessary. Nevada’s Open Meeting Law makes it untenable for Regents to confer as a body on all litigation within the deadlines set by courts. Previously, the Board delegated this authority to the Chair who was charged with seeking approval from the Chancellor and the General Counsel. The new proposal, generally, reverses those roles, delegating authority to make litigation decisions “to the Chancellor, after consultation with the Board Chair and consistent with the advice of the Chief General Counsel.”

As presented, this resolution would apply to all litigation, including lawsuits initiated by NSHE on behalf of the Board, not just those where NSHE is a defendant.

The NFA recommends that Regents amend the resolution to authorize delegation ONLY when time does not allow consideration by the full Board. It should also require that the Board Chair approve decisions by the Chancellor, not just be consulted, and that the full Board be informed once a decision has been made. The Board Chair should retain the right to seek additional legal counsel and not rely solely on the advice of the NSHE Chief General Counsel. If the Board Chair disagrees with a decision of the Chancellor pertaining to litigation, the matter should automatically go before the full Board. Furthermore, NSHE should not initiate any legal action without consideration by the full Board of Regents. 

Regents have the fiduciary responsibility for the Nevada System of Higher Education. A blanket delegation of authority over litigation abdicates a significant portion of that responsibility. It should not happen. Once established, the delegation of authority would be difficult to reverse. Consider the consequences of the worst possible Chancellor and General Counsel, not the current ones, having authority over litigation under any possible circumstances effectively without Board oversight.

Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Part 6 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education.

The recommendations here from the Nevada Faculty Alliance are presented in good faith as ways to improve the funding formula and meet achievable goals. We appreciate the Committee’s difficult task and hard work. Our shared concerns are in serving students across the state, especially those in underserved areas. 

One of our actionable solutions begins with analyzing the current NSHE funding formula. Because it is only a distribution formula an institution can meet all of its performance goals and still experience a budget decrease because other institutions had larger enrollment growth. Any new formula that merely redistributes existing funds will produce winners and losers and fail for Nevada’s students. 

Chair Hardesty and Vice Chair Charleton have emphasized the Committee’s charge is to develop a new formula without new funding. Committee members have advocated for additional funds to fairly implement formula changes. As shown in Part 3, including summer course credits in the Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) formula without additional funds would result in significant budget cuts for five of the seven institutions. 

Reimagining the Formula as a Funding Formula

Budgets for the seven NSHE colleges and universities are currently developed through the state budget process, starting with the base-year budget and making various maintenance adjustments including caseload. At the end of the process, the total appropriation for the seven institutions is redistributed according to their WSCHs. That is backward and it leads to constant competition among the colleges and universities.

A true funding formula would determine the cost of providing higher education per WSCH (or other chosen metrics), then budget that amount multiplied by the WSCHs. The existing dollar value per WSCH should be adjusted for inflation according to the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI). Then that value multiplied by each institution’s WSCHs would be the institution's new base budget. The detailed budget (including cost-of-living adjustments) for each institution would be developed with the formula funding totals. Using WSCHs as the starting point for budgeting would prevent a redistribution or competition between institutions.

If the state provides insufficient funds to fully fund the formula, the only alternative is to reduce the appropriation per WSCH across the board by the same percentage and then raise student fees or cut services to compensate. That’s the reality regardless of which formula is established.

In case another sudden drop in enrollment were to occur, as happened during the pandemic, the best of the past two years of the WSCHs should be used to provide time for recovery or adjustment. (A three-year average has been proposed, but that still counts even and odd years differently with a biennial budget and increases the lag between count and budget years.) Ideally, projected enrollments would be used, but further study would be needed to find a feasible and accurate projection method.

Funding Student Services

In Part 4, we recommended shifting funding for existing student services expenditures from the WSCH to a headcount to reflect the costs of providing student services beyond the classroom. To implement that in a revenue-neutral way, each institution’s current student services expenditures would be carved out of their WSCH allocation (8% overall but varying from 5% to 14%). The total amount would then be redistributed according to the average of fall and spring student headcounts, resulting in an initial minor funding shift. For future budgets, the total student service funding would be divided by the total headcounts to obtain the dollar value per headcount. That value would be increased by HEPI inflation to set the budget based on each institution’s new headcount.

Funding Enhancements

The Committee cannot appropriate funds, but it can recommend additional changes in the formula be contingent upon full funding. These should include:

• Adding all summer course credits to the WSCH formula, with an appropriation to cover the full cost. Unintended consequences of including summer credits without additional funding are discussed in Part 3. If all summer school courses convert to regular WSCH funding in the state-supported operating budget, then UNR’s and UNLV’s academic departments must receive equivalent funding levels to support their research missions.

• Enhancing the headcount formula to fund additional wrap-around services for at-risk and underserved students, counting them at 1.25 to 1.30, with an appropriation to cover the full cost. The categories of at-risk students should include Pell-grant recipients, underrepresented and first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. Details can be found in Part 4.

• An adjustment to the weighting in the WSCH formula for Nursing and possibly other critical needs. Again, weight enhancements must be fully funded to avoid robbing one institution to pay another. The Committee should also recommend a regular procedure to update the level and discipline weights in the WSCHs. They should be revised every four to six years to keep up with changes in the cost of instruction and the state’s critical economic areas.

Without full funding for these enhancements, smaller institutions would face severe budget cuts because existing funds would be redistributed to larger institutions. Recommending formula enhancements contingent upon funding would provide a path to future budget requests.

Inflation Adjustments

NSHE already has a policy to raise student registration fees according to HEPI, and state funding should keep up. A funding formula that is not adjusted for inflation results in cuts that prevent our ability to serve students and compensate faculty and staff fairly and competitively. The HEPI by Commonfund is a reasonable national measure of inflation in the higher education sector. For each biennial budget, the WSCHs or headcounts should be adjusted for the most recent two years of HEPI inflation.

Indexing the WSCH dollar value for inflation is not a major change from actual practice. For all the biennial budget requests and supposed enhancements since the current formula was established, the following figure shows that the appropriation per WSCH adjusted for inflation has been mostly flat since 2014, except for the decline after the pandemic from which we haven't not fully recovered.

If (and only if) the formula funding for NSHE is indexed for inflation, then the mechanism for funding COLAs for NSHE employees could be reconsidered for the formula-funded NSHE budgets. COLAs in line with the HEPI could be accommodated within the formula. Catch-up increases for competitive compensation require additional state funding, however.

Outcomes-Based Funding

We recommend eliminating the current performance pool as a carve-out from base funding. Any outcomes-based funding should be additions to the base budgets. Our recommended enhancement to the headcount formula for at-risk and underserved students provides outcomes-based funding, applied to about 8% of the budget (versus the 20% carve-out in the current performance pool). Institutions that recruit and retain those students would receive a funding boost based on their headcounts but without competing against other institutions for a fixed allocation or being threatened with a reduced budget for not meeting targets, as with the current performance pool. Headcount values could also include student-centric performance metrics for retention, progression, and completion. If a larger percentage of the formula is allocated to headcounts to enhance student support services (such as disability resources or mental health), it should be phased in with hold-harmless funding.

Other performance could be rewarded in a similar manner. For example, WSCH values could receive a bonus for efficiency measured by the number of degrees and certificates awarded per credit hour; that would prevent a reduction in funding if an institution graduates its students more quickly. All outcomes incentives must be additional funds that do not make institutions compete or put base funding at risk. No performance funding should risk base funding using metrics that track the total number of students, directly or indirectly. The WSCHs and headcounts already account for enrollment. Instead, institutions should be rewarded for increasing efficiency or reaching a higher proportion of a target population.

Audits

For full transparency and to promote trust between NSHE and the Legislature, all institutional reporting of formula factors (e.g., WSCHs and headcounts) should be audited regularly.  The formula should incentivize services to students, not creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Updated 5/20/2024 11:30 a.m. Edited for clarity.

A Separate Formula for the Community Colleges using Headcounts Could Decimate the Rural Colleges

Part 5 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHECommittee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamentalPrinciples for Funding Higher Education. 

Several presidents and members of the Committee have recommended establishing separate formulas for different institution types to account for their different missions and student demographics. HCM Strategists, the Committee’s consultant, has advised against that, stating that there are too few institutions for multiple formulas to be practical and that the Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs) formula can provide sufficient differentiation by mission.

A simple two-formula system has been suggested to maintain the WSCH formula funding for the three universities but switch the four community colleges to a headcount formula. Table 1 shows how that system would affect the community colleges. With no additional funding or hold-harmless provisions, CSN’s budget would increase by 8%, but the other three colleges would have their funding reduced by 4% for TMCC, 9% for GBC, and 33% for WNC. The smaller and rural community colleges would be significantly harmed. Such a change should not be contemplated, at least not without long-term hold-harmless funding for the smaller institutions. 

As recommended in part 4, a less radical and more practical solution would be to shift funding for Student Services expenses, about 8% of the budget overall, to a headcount formula but keep the student credit hour formula to fund instruction and related academic support.  A credit-hour formula, weighted or not, more accurately represents the costs of instruction than do headcounts, but student support costs are better correlated with headcounts.

Table 1. Comparison of WSCH and headcount formulas for CSN, GBC, TMCC, & WNC 

College	WSCH	Share of WSCH	Formula Appropriation (millions)	Funding Per WSCH	Headcount	Share of Headcount	Headcount Formula Funding (millions)	Funding Per Head	Change (millions)	Change (%)
CSN	564061	60.1%	$97.0	$172.01	33546	64.6%	$104	$3,127	$$7.9	8.1%
GBC	81614	8.7%	$14.6	$179.50	4279	8.2%	$13.4	$3,127	($1.3)	-8.7%
TMCC	204001	21.7%	$35.0	$171.76	10754	20.7%	$33.6	$3,127	($1.4)	-4.0%
WNC	89534	9.5%	$15.6	$174.65	3333	6.4%	$10.4	$3,127	($5.2)	-33.3%
Totals	939210	100%	$162.3		51912	100%	$162.3	$3,127	$0	0%

Sources: NSHE and LCB public reports. WSCH and Unduplicated Resident Headcount for the 2021-2022 count year. Formula appropriation is from the General Fund for FY2024 before COLAs and enrollment recovery funding.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts

Part 4 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education. 

A valid criticism of the current funding-distribution formula, which allocates state appropriations using resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs), is that it does not account for students from diverse backgrounds and part-time students needing wrap-around services. Several of the presidents have proposed using headcounts instead of WSCHs to distribute funding. HCM Strategists, the committee’s consultant, recommend using headcounts for only a portion of the formula.

In part 2, we showed that a complete switch from WSCHs to a headcount distribution formula would have disastrous consequences for multiple institutions. In this article, we analyze cost estimates for student services based on advisor-to-student ratios and recommend that funding for student service expenditures be tied to a student headcount measure.

Achieving a 350-to-1 Advisor-to-Student Ratio

NSHE's service standard for student services is one academic advisor or counselor per 350 students. Table 1 provides a cost estimate for funding that many advisors system-wide. 

Table 1. Estimated cost of academic advisors and counselors

Total Student Headcount (Fall 2023)	107,000
Advisors at 350-to-1 students-to-advisor	305
Compensation per advisor ($56K average salary + 35% fringe + 11% FY2025 COLA)	$84,400
Total Cost	$25,700,000

The total cost of about $25.7 million represents 2.7% of the total budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities.

Enhancement for At-Risk and Students: Closing the Achievement Gap

Another goal is to enhance funding for services to at-risk students, including underrepresented minorities (URM), Pell Grant recipients, first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. NSHE data indicate 63% of students or 67,000 are historically minoritized and 32000 are Pell-grant recipients (data for the other categories are not readily available). The calculations in Table 2 show a cost of about $18.5 million overall to provide additional advisors or other program staff to support these students at the same 350-to-1 ratio as regular academic advisors.

Table 2. Estimated cost for additional support personnel for at-risk and underrepresented students (at a 350-to-1 student-to-staff ratio)

Student Services Expenditures

Funding advisors and support personnel is only a portion of student services. We can examine current expenditures attributed to Student Services for the colleges and universities. The NSHE Operating Budgets classify expenditures using standardized functional categories. Table 3 shows percentage expenditures for the NSHE colleges and universities for 2021-2022. The overall expenditure for Student Services is 8.0% of the budget, varying from 5% for UNR to 14% for NSU. Student Services include not only academic advising, but a wide range of services and programs beyond classroom instruction including information technology.

Table 3. 2021-2022 Expenditures by Functional Categories

A correlation analysis (Table 4 in footnote) shows that institutional expenditures for Instruction, Academic Support, and Operations & Maintenance are most highly correlated with Weighted Student Credit Hours. In contrast, expenditures for Student Services are most highly correlated with Total Fall Headcounts. Thus, the institutions are already allocating resources to serve students outside of the classroom in proportion to headcounts. The left side of Figure 1 shows that institutions are spending similar amounts on Student Services per student ($644 overall).  The right side shows, in contrast, that the two comprehensive universities spend a much smaller portion of their budgets (5 to 6%) on Student Services than do NSU and the community colleges (11 to 14%).  

Figure 1. Student Services Expenditures by Institution 

As discussed in Part 2 of this series, a complete switch for the distribution formula from Weighted Student Credit Hours to headcounts would result in huge disruptions of funding. However, distribution by headcounts for up to the current 8% of expenditures for Student Services would be reasonable and would account for a variety of support services and technology infrastructure.  

Recommendations

NFA recommends that Student Services expenditures (approximately 8% of the formula-funded budgets overall) be carved out from the resident WSCH distribution formula individually for each institution and that those amounts be distributed using an average of Fall and Spring resident headcounts. In future budgets, these headcount allocations should be updated through caseload maintenance items in the state budget process, plus an adjustment inflation. Because current Student Services expenditures are highly correlated with headcounts, this change would not cause a major disruption in funding, but it would allow for growth in services to students based on headcounts rather than student credit hours, accounting for part-time students who predominate at the community colleges.

Additionally, the headcounts should be enhanced for underrepresented minority, Pell recipients, and other identifiable at-risk or underserved students (without double counting individual students) by a factor sufficient to fund an additional counselor or other program officer per 350 of those students (roughly 0.25 to 0.30).  Because the current formula does not account for these students in any way, this funding should be implemented as a enhancement.  Once funded and implemented, the enhancement of headcounts for at-risk students acts as a performance factor–recruiting and retaining those students would boost future funding. 

NFA also recommends that all reporting by the institutions of student credit hours, headcounts, and other factors that go into the funding formula should be audited regularly. The formula should provide incentives to serve students, not incentives for creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

_______________

Table 4. Correlation Analysis of 2021-2022 Institutional Expenditures in Major Functional Categories

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula

Part 3 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education. 

Summer Course Credits

Summer school courses have traditionally been funded by student fees, not the state. But over the years certain summer courses have been brought into the current funding-distribution formula based on resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs). Nursing courses, science prerequisites for nursing, and teacher preparation courses were introduced as enhancements with appropriations for state-supported summer courses.

The CSN, GBC, NSU, and WNC presidents have proposed that summer courses be funded through the WSCH formula (Item #21 in Institutional Formula Recommendations). Their reasons include reducing the time to graduation by expanding summer course offerings and funding student support during the summer. 

HCM Strategists, the consultants NSHE retained for the Committee, recommend adding summer courses to the WSCH formula with or without new funding. Although we support the general policy that the state fund all courses helping students earn their degree or certificate, bringing summer credits into the WSCH formula without additional funding would have dire consequences.

Budget Cuts for Rural Community Colleges 

Non-state-funded summer credits range from 1% of WSCHs for GBC to 14% for NSU. As seen in Figure 1, HCM estimates that, with full funding, including all summer courses in the WSCH funding-distribution formula would cost an estimated $48 million. HCM describes “minor shifts” in current funding if summer credit hours are counted in the WSCH formula without additional funding.

Figure 1. Summary of including summer WSCH in the formula (HCM, p. 23).

However, HCM’s characterization of the budget effects as minor does not survive scrutiny. Table 1 examines the consequences for each institution’s funding.[1]  A 5% to 6% decrease in funding at GBC and WNC is hardly a “minor shift.” Neither are funding cuts of 2% to 3% for NSU, UNR, and TMCC. NFA believes that any change must be fully funded.

Table 1. Summer WSCH without additional funding.

Institution	Percentage Change in Share of Total WSCH (Systemwide)	Change in Total   WSCH Funding	Percentage Change in Total WSCH Funding
UNLV	0.77%	$3,873,296	2.0%
UNR	-0.69%	($3,504,870)	-2.7%
NSU	-0.11%	($557,363)	-1.9%
CSN	0.49%	$2,499,682	2.7%
GBC	-0.13%	($681,850)	-5.0%
TMCC	-0.15%	($768,229)	-2.3%
WNC	-0.17%	($860,667)	-5.8%
Totals	0.00%	$0	0.0%

Other Consequences

The discussion of summer course funding has not addressed how various institutions use summer school revenue. Although community colleges appear to collect the revenue centrally, UNLV and UNR rebate a portion to academic departments as an incentive to offer courses. Units and departments use this revenue for faculty development, conference travel for faculty and graduate students, research support, and emergencies. If summer courses are brought into state-supported operating budgets without funding, many of UNR’s and UNLV’s academic departments will face yet another budget crisis. Also, each university will risk support for research that contributes to R1 status. 

In addition, faculty workloads will be required to support expanded summer course offerings. Given the difficulty of recruiting and retaining instructors, adding summer loads will be a big lift for some institutions and programs. Departments and units may have to compensate by proportionally reducing course loads for B-contract faculty during fall and spring semesters, which could lead to students finding reduced course offerings. 

Conclusion

As previously stated by NFA, a new formula that merely redistributes available funding will be a failure. If summer WSCHs are added to the distribution formula, they must be fully funded as an added appropriation at HCM’s estimated cost of $48 million per year.

__________

[1] We cannot reproduce HCM’s percentages in Figure 1 using available public records, but the consequences using their percentages would be similar to those in Table 1. Our full calculations are available for review; corrections from authoritative sources are welcome.

***

We welcome feedback from faculty, especially department chairs, administrative faculty, and classified staff who manage state-supported budgets. Contacts: Kent Ervin (kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Doug Unger (doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Jim New (jim.new@nevadafacultyalliance.org), and Staci Walters (staci.walters@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and corrections. Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Nevada Faculty Alliance Announces Endorsements for the Board of Regents

The NFA Political Action Committee has vetted candidates for the Board of Regents office in the 2024 Primary Election through questionnaires, interviews, and other research. The NFA-PAC endorses candidates who share our values and who support higher education as a common good, college and university affordability, academic freedom, and faculty rights including collective bargaining.

The NFA-PAC is pleased to announce endorsements for Carlos David Fernandez (Regent Distrist 1), Carol Del Carlo (Regent District 9), and Amy Carvalho (Regent District 12). Additional candidate information is linked in the table below.

Regent District	NFA Endorsed Candidate	Candidate Information
District 1 - northern Clark County	Carlos David Fernandez	Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website
District 4 – northeastern Clark County	No endorsement for the primary election.	Candidate questionnaires and forum
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent)	Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website
District 12 – southeastern Clark County	Amy Carvalho (incumbent)	Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website

***

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.nevadafacultyalliance.org) is an affiliate of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers/AFl-CIO. Our mission is to advance academic freedom, enhance shared governance, and promote the economic security of professional employees at the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The NFA works to empower our members to be fully engaged in our mission to help students succeed.

The NFA Political Action Committee, which is comprised of NFA members in northern and southern Nevada, is proud to make these political endorsements. We will be encouraging the winning candidates to fight with us to improve higher education in Nevada. 

Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers

Part 2 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for the Funding of Higher Education. 

The ad hoc NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding has been tasked with evaluating other states’ higher education funding models to support their NSHE-similar institutions. These models are to be compared to Nevada’s current model, including allocation and institutional costs to deliver instruction. The committee will then determine whether other funding-allocation methods would be appropriate for NSHE. The Nevada Faculty Alliance has stated to the committee that a new formula will be a failure if it merely redistributes the existing funding without new resources. 

Impact of Formula Changes

The total funding per student at Nevada’s public colleges and universities is third-from-bottom among all states. It can be simultaneously true that certain institutions–for example, Nevada community colleges–are disadvantaged by the current formula and that all institutions are underfunded. Presidents will naturally recommend formulas that favor their own institutions, but the Committee must balance students’ different needs and resources and recommend an equitable funding formula.

The current formula distributes funding to the seven NSHE colleges and universities in proportion to resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH). A change from the resident WSCH to a different formula could result in a major disruption to funding. For example, as the following data will show, changing from WSCH to “unduplicated resident headcounts” in 2021–2022 would have decreased UNLV’s state appropriation by $55 million (−29%) and increased CSN’s by $69 million (+74%), out of a total $500 million appropriated to all seven institutions. 

NFA maintains that any additions to the formula (e.g., including summer school courses in the WSCHs) must be fully funded. Any changes to the distribution formula must be implemented only with hold-harmless provisions for at least two biennia to allow institutions to adjust. Furthermore, different measures may be appropriate for a portion of the budget—for example, headcounts for non-instructional student support services—but not for the entire budget.

Comparison of Different Formula-Distribution Metrics

The following tables and charts show how different distribution formulas would affect the seven NSHE colleges and universities, using 2021–2022 data. Tables 1A and 1B show the state appropriations in percentages of the total and estimated percentage change after a shift from resident WSCHs. Tables 2A and 2B show the appropriations and changes in millions of dollars.

Switching completely from WSCHs to other enrollment metrics for the funding distribution formula would benefit the community colleges and NSU, but without additional funding would require drastic budget cuts at UNLV and UNR, comparable to recent pandemic budget cuts.  Alternatively, different funding distribution formulas could be implemented for different institution types. Without additional funding, however, that could bake in disparities in the current formula.

The first data column in Table 1A shows resident WSCH percentages, which is how the current formula distributes funding. That is compared to unweighted student-credit hours (same as average annual full-time-equivalent enrollment) in the second column. The weightings of courses by levels and discipline are intended to account for the different costs of instruction.

The tables and Chart 1 compare three different headcount measures. Headcounts generally peak in the Fall semester. Total headcounts include out-of-state students; resident headcounts do not and are therefore lower. The “unduplicated resident headcount”, however, counts any individual student who has taken a state-supported course during the year. These can exceed the peak total headcounts because some students take courses sporadically. Because most of those students do not need year-round support, the unduplicated resident headcounts are a poor measure for the resources needed for student support services. We recommend the Fall headcounts, or an average of Fall and Spring, as more accurate for distributing funding for student services.

Finally, maintained square footage is included in the tables and Chart 2 because a bill in the 2023 legislature would have shifted the formula to consider only building square footage on each campus.  Square footage has been mentioned in the funding committee discussions mainly in the context of fixed facility operations and utility costs.

Conclusion and Future Analysis

The current Weighted Student Credit Hour formula attempts to recognize the costs of offering courses to students at various levels in various disciplines. That’s appropriate for funding instructional staff and operations.  Student support services geared to individual students are better correlated with student headcounts, including part-time students. There are also fixed facility and administrative costs that depend weakly on student numbers. In later posts, we will analyze these various cost drivers and how they might equitably be incorporated into a new formula for appropriate portions of the budgets.

Table 1A. NSHE Institutional Appropriation Percentages using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	37.9%	33.7%	28.8%	28.2%	27.0%	34.2%
UNR	25.2%	20.6%	18.9%	16.7%	15.3%	37.7%
NSU	5.8%	6.8%	6.8%	7.6%	7.6%	2.0%
CSN	18.6%	24.7%	29.3%	30.8%	32.4%	14.7%
GBC	2.7%	2.9%	3.3%	3.9%	3.2%	2.7%
TMCC	6.7%	7.8%	9.3%	9.7%	10.4%	5.5%
WNC	3.0%	3.4%	3.5%	3.1%	4.1%	3.1%

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Maintained square footage includes non-instructional space.

Table 1B. Estimated Percentage Change in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	0.0%	-11.1	-24.0%	-25.7%	-28.8%	-9.8%
UNR	0.0%	-18.3%	-25.0%	-33.6%	-39.3%	+49.6%
NSU	0.0%	+17.2%	17.2%	+31.3%	31.0%	-65.5%
CSN	0.0%	+32.8%	57.5%	65.4%	74.2%	-21.0%
GBC	0.0%	7.4%	22.2%	43.7%	18.5%	0.0%
TMCC	0.0%	16.4%	38.8%	45.5%	55.2%	-17.9%
WNC	0.0%	13.3%	16.7%	3.4%	36.7%	3.3%

Table 2A. NSHE Institutional Appropriations using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$189.5	$168.5	$144.0	$140.8	$135.0	$171.0
UNR	$126.0	$103.0	$94.5	$83.6	$76.5	$188.5
NSU	$29.0	$34.0	$34.0	$38.1	$38.0	$10.0
CSN	$93.0	$123.5	$146.5	$153.8	$162.0	$73.5
GBC	$13.5	$14.5	$16.5	$19.4	$16.0	$13.5
TMCC	$33.5	$39.0	$46.5	$48.7	$52.0	$27.5
WNC	$15.0	$17.0	$17.5	$15.5	$20.5	$15.5

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Assumes $500 million total appropriation.

Table 2B. Estimated Changes in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$0.0	-$21.0	-$45.5	-$48.7	-$54.5	-$18.5
UNR	$0.0	-$23.0	-$31.5	-$42.4	-$49.5	$62.5
NSU	$0.0	$5.0	$5.0	$9.1	$9.0	-$19.0
CSN	$0.0	$30.5	$53.5	$60.8	$69.0	-$19.5
GBC	$0.0	$1.0	$3.0	$5.9	$2.5	$0.0
TMCC	$0.0	$5.5	$13.0	$15.2	$18.5	-$6.0
WNC	$0.0	$2.0	$2.5	$0.5	$5.5	$0.5

Chart 1. Headcount numbers by institution and type

Chart 2. Distribution Formulas by Institution for Various Measures

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Update 5/17/2024:  Corrected values in Table 1B to be percentage change in institutional appropriation (rather than the difference in the percentage share of the total budget).

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

There are four seats on the Board of Regents up for election in 2024. The primary election is on June 11 with early voting starting May 25. The primary will narrow the field to two candidates for each race going forward to the general election in November--unless one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in primary in which case that candidate is declared elected and there is no general election.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action Committee (NFA-PAC) sent a questionnaire exploring NSHE and faculty issues to each candidate's email address. Seven of the 13 candidates have responded. 

The NFA-PAC is also conducting candidate forums that are open to all NFA members. Video recordings of the forums will be available for review once all candidates have responded to our request to participate. Candidate endorsements may be made by the NFA-PAC at the conclusion of the process. Only candidates who offer unqualified support for the principles of shared governance and collective bargaining rights will be considered for endorsement.

District	Questionnaire Responses	Forum Video
District 1 - northern Clark County	Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler	April 30, 2024 Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler
District 4 – northeastern Clark County	Aaron Bautista Richard Andrew Carrillo Donald Sylvantee McMichael (incumbent) Shawn Stamper Tonia Holmes Sutton	April 24, 2024 Aaron Bautista Tonia Holmes Sutton
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent) Bret Delaire Gary T Johnson	May 13, 2024 Carol Del Carlo
District 12 – southeastern Clark County	Amy Carvalho (incumbent) Jonathan Maxham	April 29, 2024 Amy Carvalho Jonathan Maxham