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
