ADMINISTRATIVE RATIOS COMPARISON REPORT UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC OFFICE OF THE PROVOST February, 2015
Executive Summary The Chair of Pacific s Academic Council requested that the Office of the Provost conduct a study into administrative size relative to size of faculty at Pacific. The Provost, along with Pacific s Office of Institutional Research, conducted a statistical analysis of administrative, managerial and professional staff and faculty at Pacific and compared findings with similar data at our standard and aspirant peer institutions, utilizing federally-mandated Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (hereinafter IPEDS ) employment and enrollment data. Determination of statistical ratios of administration at different levels as a function of other populations at Pacific (faculty and students) show that Pacific has a lower than average number of administrators relative to faculty and students than similar institutions. Additionally, the data suggest that our aspirant peers have, on average, the highest number of administrators relative to faculty and students. Introduction The landscape of the contemporary higher education institution seems to be in constant flux. Changing enrollment figures and admissions quality, increasing regulation (such as Title IX, IRS reporting, etc.), student s changing perceptions as to the value of a degree and concerns about rising tuition are just a few of the issues universities are tackling. The largest expenditures of a university are its people: faculty, staff and administrators. It is incumbent upon a University to consider all aspects of its operations to ensure that student tuition dollars are being spent wisely and to reduce costs where possible, while maintain quality and providing value. The expansion of faculty and administration at many Universities has accompanied increasing regulatory requirements, compliance, assessment demands, pedagogies and student and parent expectations for a high value education. It is understandable that tensions exist between faculty and administration about the relative growth of different parts of the University. In response to the request of the Chair of Academic Council, the Provost office assessed and compared the relative growth of the faculty and administrative components at Pacific with those of standard and aspirant peer institutions. Methodology Administrative titles, responsibilities, job descriptions and compensation schema vary widely, even among Pacific s institutional peers. Because of this variation, simply counting people with certain titles or job descriptions at each school and then reporting on those numbers would lead to serious questions about data validity. Thus normalization of definitions of administration, professionals and other staff is important. This can be accomplished using IPEDS and employment classifications. IPEDS is a system of annual surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education through the National Center for Education Statistics. Responses to this annual survey are required by all institutions that participate or are applicants for participation in any Federal financial assistance program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as mandated by 20 U.S.C. 1094. Each institution must collect and report on a number of different types of information; for our purposes institutional employment and enrollment data were most significant. Employment classifications in IPEDS are governed by the U.S. Department of Labor s Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) scheme. Each classification grouping is given a standardized definition, and each institution fits their employees into the standard classifications as it sees fit. This 1
breakdown of overall employees is sent to IPEDS and is then made available publicly for all reporting institutions. Because the definitions of each class of employee are normalized in this fashion data from this source has significantly more credibility than those obtained using other available methods. The absolute numbers of administrative staff using IPEDS data do not take into account the size of a University. To control for institution size, we created ratios of administrative staff as a function of both faculty and student populations. Faculty FTE represents all instructional faculty. Total Faculty FTE is shown as the sum of full-time faculty and 1/3 of part-time faculty. Staff FTE includes all individuals in that classification whose primary role is not instructional. Student FTE includes undergraduate, graduate and professional students. It is important to note that while Institutional Research completed data analysis for 2007-2013 (first year available until last year available), there are two disparate data sets to analyze. Data from 2007-2011 were collected using the old SOC definitions (see Table 1, below), while data from 2012-2013 were from the SOC new definitions (Ibid.). While the two groups are not comparable on an apples-to-apples basis, trends and comparisons relative to other institutions are valuable to an analysis of administrative efficiency at Pacific. Table 1. New and Old SOC Employee Groups New Categories (2012-13) Old Categories (2007-11) Management Occupations Business and Financial Operations Occupations Computer, Engineering, and Science Occupations Community Service, Legal, Arts, and Media Occupations Librarians, Curators, and Archivists and Other Teaching and Instructional Support Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations Service Occupations Sales and Related Occupations Office and Administrative Support Occupations Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations Executive/administrative/managerial Other professional Other professional Technical and paraprofessional Other professional Technical and paraprofessional Other professional Technical and paraprofessional Other professional Technical and paraprofessional Technical and paraprofessional Service/Maintenance Not specifically mentioned in IPEDS Clerical and secretarial Service/Maintenance Skilled Crafts Service/Maintenance 8 2
Data and Analyses 2007-2011 Data Graphical Key Green represents Aspirant peer institutions Blue represents Standard peer institutions Orange represents Pacific data for all three campuses Light Orange represents data for Pacific s Stockton campus only Definitions Executive and Professional Staff o Primary role of these staff requires management of the institution, with assignment including the incumbent to exercise discretion and independent judgment. Other Professional Staff o Primary roles of these individuals are performing academic support, student service and institutional support. Excluded Staff (not included in these analyses) o Primary role of these individuals is support, including clerical, skilled crafts, etc. These staff members generally have no decision-making authority for the institution, but rather fulfill a necessary service to Pacific. Graphs 1 and 2. Faculty to Executive and Faculty to Other Professional Ratios. Faculty to Executive and Managerial Staff Ratio 2011-12 Academic Year Pacific (three campuses) had one of the highest ratios of all peers (i.e. more faculty to administrators). Faculty to Other Professional Staff Ratio Pacific (three campuses) had a higher ratio than most other peers (i.e. more faculty to staff). The Stockton campus had less faculty to staff compared to the University as a whole. 3
Data from 2011-12 (see Graph 1) show that Pacific has one of the higher ratios of faculty to executive/managerial staff as compared to our peer or aspirant institutions. This comparison indicates that, as a function of Pacific s faculty count, Pacific had a smaller administrative workforce than the majority of our peers and aspirants. Additionally, Pacific has one of the highest faculty to other professional staff ratios as well, indicating that, as a function of faculty size, Pacific has a smaller nonexecutive administrative workforce than the vast majority of our peers (see Graph 2). These trends appear stable over time. The charts below show our peer s (light blue), aspirant s (green), and combined peer and aspirant s (dark blue) average faculty to executive/managerial staff ratio and faculty to other professional staff ratio over the entire 2007-2011 period as compared to Pacific s (orange) ratios (see Graphs 3 and 4).. It is worth noting that the chart below also indicates our peers were increasing their executive/managerial workforce during the same interval as Pacific. Graphs 3 and 4. Executive and Other Professional Ratios Over Time A higher ratio faculty to staff. staff to faculty. Peer trends appear stable over time. 4
A higher ratio faculty to staff. staff to faculty. All trends appear stable over time. In addition to defining our administrative workforce as a function of the size of our faculty, we also determined the size of our administrative workforce as a function of our student population. As our mission at Pacific is (in part) to provide a superior, student-centered learning experience integrating liberal arts and professional education..., this is a useful determination of how our administration manages our student s overall education as compared to our peers. 5
Graphs 5 and 6. Student to Executive, Other Professional Staff Ratios. Student to Executive and Managerial Staff Ratio 2011-12 Academic Year Pacific Stockton campus had one of the highest ratios compared to peers (i.e. more students to staff). Student to Other Professional Staff Ratio *Pacific Stockton campus ratio is 103. *Northeastern ratio is 133. *Duquesne ratio is 164. Pacific Stockton campus and Pacific (three campuses) falls closer to the middle of all peers. Data from 2011-12 (see Graph 5) shows that Pacific has one of the higher ratios of students to executive/managerial staff as compared to any of our peer or aspirant institutions This comparison indicates that, as a function of Pacific s student population, Pacific has a smaller administrative workforce than most of our peers and aspirants.. Additionally, Pacific has a higher than average student to other professional staff ratio as well, indicating that, as a function of student population, Pacific has a smaller non-executive administrative workforce than most of our peers (see Graph 6). These trends appear to be stable over time. The charts below show our peer s (light blue), aspirant s (green), and combined peer and aspirant s (dark blue) average student to executive/managerial staff ratio and student to other professional staff ratio over the entire 2007-2011 period as compared to Pacific s (orange) ratios (see Graphs 7 and 8). While Pacific s ratio is comparable to the average of all schools measured for other professional staff, Pacific has a significantly higher ratio of students to executive/management staff than the average of either group of peers. 6
Graphs 7 and 8. Student to Executive and Other Professional Ratios Over Time. A higher ratio students to staff. staff to students. Peer trends appear stable over time. A higher ratio students to staff. staff to students. All trends appear stable over time. 7
2012-2013 Data Graphical Key Green represents Aspirant peer institutions Blue represents Standard peer institutions Orange represents Pacific data for all three campuses Light Orange represents data for Pacific s Stockton campus only Definitions Management Staff o Primary role of these individuals is the management of the institution and includes executives. Examples of positions at Pacific that fit this definition are President, Provost, Dean, Vice President, Assistant Vice President, Executive Director, Managing Editor, Assistant Provost, Associate Provost, and Vice Provost. Business & Financial Operations Staff o Primary role of these individuals is business related and includes compliance officers, analyst and specialists. Examples of positions at Pacific that fit this definition are Business Manager, Treasury Analyst, Research Analyst, Associate Controller, Senior Internal Auditor, and Payroll Manager. Excluded Staff (not included in these analyses) o Primary role of these individuals is support, including clerical, skilled crafts, etc. These staff members generally have no decision-making authority for the institution, but rather fulfill a necessary service to Pacific. 8
Graphs 9 and 10. Faculty to Management and Faculty to Business & Finance Staff among Peers. Faculty to Management Staff Ratio Faculty to Business & Financial Operations Staff Ratio 2013-14 Academic Year A majority of aspirant peers have the lowest faculty to staff ratio (i.e. more staff to faculty). Pacific s (three campuses) ratio falls in the middle of the peer group. Pacific Stockton campus has more faculty to staff. Pacific s (three campus) ratio falls closer to the middle of the peer group. The Stockton campus had more faculty to staff. *Fordham s ratio is 45 Data from 2013-14 (see Graph 9) shows that Pacific (3-city) has a ratio of faculty to management staff near the median of this dataset of our peer or aspirant institutions, indicating that, as a function of Pacific s faculty population, Pacific had a smaller administrative workforce than approximately half of our peers and aspirants. However, Pacific (Stockton Campus) had a ratio in the top third of the dataset, indicating that as a single campus entity Pacific has a lower managerial ratio than approximately 2/3 of our peer and aspirant institutions. Additionally, Pacific has a higher than average faculty to business & financial operations staff ratio as well, indicating that, as a function of faculty count, Pacific has a smaller non-executive administrative workforce than most of our peers (see Graph 10). These observations appear to be stable. The charts below shows our peer s (light blue), aspirant s (green), and combined peer and aspirant s (dark blue) average faculty to management staff ratio and faculty to business & financial operations staff ratio over the 2012-2013 period as compared to Pacific s (orange) ratios (see Graphs 11 and 12). While Pacific s ratio is comparable to the average of all schools measured for management staff, Pacific has a significantly higher ratio of faculty to business & financial operations staff than the average of either group of peers. 9
Graphs 11 and 12. Faculty to Management and Business & Finance Staff A higher ratio faculty to staff. staff to faculty. Peer trends appear stable over time. A higher ratio faculty to staff. staff to faculty. All trends appear stable over time. 10
As above, we also determined the management staff and business & financial operations staff ratios as a function of student population. Graphs 13 and 14. Student to Management and Business & Finance Staff Student to Management Staff Ratio Student to Business & Financial Operations Staff Ratio 2013-14 Academic Year A majority of aspirant peers have the lowest student to staff ratio (i.e. more staff to students). Pacific s (three campus) ratio was closer to the middle of the peer group. The Stockton campus had more students to staff. Pacific s (three campus) ratio was closer to the middle of the peer group. The Stockton campus had more students to staff. *Fordham s ratio is 568 Data from 2013-14 (see Graph 13) shows that Pacific (3-city) has a ratio of students to management staff just below the median of this dataset of our peer or aspirant institutions. This indicates that, as a function of Pacific s faculty population, Pacific had a smaller administrative workforce than approximately half of our peers and aspirants.. However, Pacific (Stockton Campus) had a ratio in the top third of the dataset, indicating that as a single campus entity Pacific has less management personnel than approximately 2/3 of our peer and aspirant institutions. While it is necessary to add a certain level of oversight and management on any additional physical space, Pacific s professional programs in those locations do not allow for the same student concentration as may be found on the Stockton campus. Additionally, Pacific has a higher than average student to business & financial operations staff ratio as well, indicating that, as a function of student count, Pacific has a smaller non-executive administrative workforce than most of our peers (see Graph 14). These observations appear to be stable. The charts below shows our peer s (light blue), aspirant s (green), and combined peer and aspirant s (dark blue) average faculty to management staff ratio and faculty to business & financial operations staff ratio 11
over the 2012-2013 period as compared to Pacific s (orange) ratios (see Graphs 15 and 16). While Pacific s ratio is comparable to the average of all schools measured for management staff, Pacific has a significantly higher ratio of students to business & financial operations staff than the average of either group of peers. Graphs 15 and 16. Student to Management and Student to Business and Finance ratios over time. A higher ratio students to staff. staff to students. Peer trends appear stable over time. 12
A higher ratio students to staff. staff to students. Pacific and standard peer trends have increased over time. Conclusion Higher education is, now more than ever, subject to rapidly changing societal, political, and economic forces that require administration to adapt to new circumstances quickly, leverage new technologies and maintain fiscal responsibility all while ensuring that the quality of education never diminishes. As these management responsibilities grow and become more complex, administrative leadership across higher education must increase their awareness and ability to work through these problems, with the occasional answer being to increase the size of the administrative workforce. However, with the constant financial pressure under which faculty and academic units find themselves, it is natural to question whether our own administration is an effective use of its own funding. The above data and analyses leads to the conclusion that, compared to our peer and aspirant institutions, Pacific s administration is relatively small. As a statistical analysis Pacific s administration, as a function of either faculty or student population is in the bottom half of almost any measure of size. In the one instance where Pacific s ratio is in the top half (Student-to-Management Staff during 2013-14), the ratio, when taken only on the Stockton campus is again in the bottom third of peers. This is a better apples-toapples comparison between institutions as most of our peers and aspirants have only a single campus, and the addition of our Sacramento and San Francisco campuses creates inefficiencies in administration (due to the nature of professional education on those campuses vs. traditional undergraduate education in Stockton). While each institution studied has its own peculiarities and individual nuances, the data above show that Pacific s administration is smaller than the majority of our peer and aspirant institutions, and is significantly smaller than the averages of our peer and aspirant institutions. 13