Interprovincial Comparison of University Revenue. Council on University Planning and Analysis Council of Ontario Universities

Transcription

1 Interprovincial Comparison of University Revenue Council on University Planning and Analysis Council of Ontario Universities J UNE 2012

2

3 Interprovincial Comparison of University Revenue Working Paper Prepared June 2012 by: Council on University Planning and Analysis (CUPA) and the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) Conseil des universitiés de l Ontario 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 *The Council of Ontario Universities welcomes all comments on this working paper For more information contact: Peter Gooch Research, Analysis and Policy ext.209 pgooch@cou.on.ca ISBN COU Number 865

4

5 Table of Contents Part 1. Overview... 4 Introduction... 4 Methodology Overview... 4 Numerators and Denominators... 4 Key data sources and assumptions... 5 Student enrolment... 5 Financial information... 8 Results... 9 Part 2. Summary Tables Summary Table 1 Funding per student in Ontario, all scenarios Summary Table 2 Average Funding, Ontario as a Percentage of the rest of Canada, all scenarios Summary Table 3 Ranking of Ontario, all scenarios Part 3: Detailed methodology I. Institutions selected II. Enrolment Data comparability Measurement construction Caveats III. Revenue provincial grants and tuition fees Data comparability Measurement construction: Caveats... 24

6 Part 4. Results Funding all measures (in $1,000) Enrolments all measures Funding per enrolment unit, ranks and statistics selected scenarios a). No program adjustment (unweighted) b). BIU weighted diploma/certificate and degree enrolments blended Appendix I: Institutions by Province Appendix II BIU per FTE weighting USER Manual Appendix III: Notes on Methodology Enrolment weighting steps Appendix IV: Endowments Appendix V: Presentation of Preliminary Results, January

7 Executive Summary The purpose of this project is to compare the amount of funding per student that universities in Ontario and other provinces receive and to develop a sustainable and reliable method for making such comparisons. Key data sources for the project are the Post-Secondary Information System (PSIS) from Statistics Canada for enrolment and the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) financial report for revenue. Institutional data are aggregated at the provincial level and only institutions common to both data sources are included. Appendix I lists those institutions by province. An overarching principle of the project is to compare the amount of funding that institutions in each province receive, on average, rather than the amount of funding effor that provinces expend on university education. Accordingly, revenue is defined as funding available for basic operations, and includes provincial grants and tuition in the Operating Fund and in the Special Purpose and Trust Funds. Provincial funding that goes directly to students in financial aid programs like the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) or through the tax system, in the form of tax s, is not included in the analysis, nor is provincial sponsored research or major capital support. 1 The complexity with inter-jurisdictional comparisons arises from differences in funding policies and practices, the way institutions and provinces count student enrolments, and in the discipline and program level mix. Each of the preceding factors affects per-student cost calculations. In the case of funding policies and practices, the CAUBO report attempts to standardize reporting across the country and considerable progress has been made over the past decade or so to improve the comparability of the information. Nevertheless, provincial differences in tuition policy, student assistance, capital support and the treatment of funding for medical programs are challenges that need to be addressed in any inter-jurisdictional comparison. In the case of enrolments, the absence of a national enrolment count that provides a comparable student count normalized for course load remains a challenge. In its place one is left with calculating a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) enrolment count that has acknowledged shortcomings. The matter of adjusting for differences in discipline and program level mix means adopting some form of an enrolment weighting scheme to recognize differences in costs. To improve comparability, this project modeled a number of approaches to recognize potential differences in funding policies and practices. These include: examining the General Operating Fund and then adding the Special Purpose Fund; focusing on grants from the higher education ministry in each province, then total provincial grants from all ministries minus grants from the ministry, and finally total provincial grants; and recognizing the impact of institutional student assistance expenditure on gross tuition revenue. In the case of enrolment, the analysis focuses on fall-term full-time and part-time headcount enrolment in diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate (master s and doctorate) levels, including both domestic and international students. Headcount data is converted in Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) students by equating one FTE to either one full-time headcount or 3.5 part-time headcounts. 1 Similarly, University Endowment Income is not included in the per student analysis. However, Appendix IV provides a summary of Ontario s Endowment position relative to other provinces. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 1 of 63

8 FTEs by Classification of Instruction Program (CIP) codes are used to categorize enrolments by discipline and the discipline counts are mapped into Ontario s program weights. The available datasets and methodology have some shortcomings but given the complexity associated with trying to compare funding levels in ten separate provinces, the final results provide a reasonable indication of Ontario s relative situation. Based on the available datasets and the methodology outlined previously the results are consistent: regardless of the revenue model, Ontario s relative position is either the lowest (tenth) or second lowest (ninth) among the ten provinces, with little movement in position among the other nine provinces. When gross tuition revenue was taken into account, Ontario compared slightly better but the subtraction of student assistance expenditures resulted in Ontario s return to the bottom ranking. After examination of the various assumptions and resulting scenarios, the most appropriate comparison uses: revenue total government grants net of funding from the general operating fund only, plus tuition net of scholarship expenditures; and enrolment annual Basic Income Unit (BIU) weighting, with degrees and diplomas blended. The table below summarizes some of the key results of this study, with the most appropriate scenario in bold. Ontario ranks either ninth or tenth in Canada for per-student funding received. Under the most appropriate scenario, the per-student funding rate for Ontario was $7,024, well below the average rate for the rest of Canada ($8,073). While the per-student funding results are recorded as precise amounts, readers should recognize that there is a margin of error associated with each specific figure. They are useful to gauge relative differences in funding levels, but should not be read rigidly as accurate-to-the-dollar figures. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 2 of 63

9 [Summary Table - Interprovincial Comparison of Per-student Funding] Provincial Grants Only Provincial Grants and Net Tuition Revenue Province Per FTE student Per weighted enrolment unit Per FTE student Per weighted enrolment unit $ Rank $ Rank $ Rank $ Rank Newfoundland and Labrador $19,142 1 $9,444 1 $21,827 1 $10,768 2 Prince Edward Island $14,581 4 $8,639 2 $19,571 4 $11,596 1 Nova Scotia $9,213 9 $5,075 9 $15,271 8 $8,413 8 New Brunswick $10,119 8 $5,611 8 $15,931 6 $8,834 6 Quebec $12,290 5 $5,650 7 $14,847 9 $6, Ontario $8, $4, $13, $7,024 9 Manitoba $11,818 7 $6,801 5 $15,446 7 $8,889 5 Saskatchewan $15,088 3 $7,651 3 $19,580 3 $9,929 3 Alberta $15,631 2 $7,359 4 $19,748 2 $9,297 4 British Columbia $12,183 6 $5,954 6 $17,926 5 $8,761 7 Canadian Average $10,654 $5,322 $15,229 $7,607 Canadian Average excluding Ontario Ontario as a % of the average of the rest of Canada $12,707 $6,177 $16,607 $8,073 65% 69% 82% 87% COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 3 of 63

10 Part 1. Overview Introduction This project seeks to develop a sustainable methodology for inter-jurisdictional comparisons and to compare university funding per student at the provincial level. While the purposes are reasonably clear, there are considerable complexities associated with inter-jurisdictional comparisons and those complexities affect the sustainability and comparability of the methodology. Each province has established its own approach to postsecondary education (PSE) that reflects its unique history and circumstance. Consequently, there are differences in funding policies and practices, methods for counting students, and in the structure of PSE sectors across the country. At the same time, there are differences in discipline and program level mix, lengths of programs, and levels of international enrolment factors that need to be addressed when comparing per-student university funding and that need to be accounted for in the methodology. In attempting to address the preceding differences, and develop a comparable set of information that can be used to determine the relative funding situation in Ontario, several measures of per-student funding were used. Differences in discipline and program level mix (undergraduate, master s, doctorate) were addressed through the application of Ontario program weights (BIUs). BIU program weights are rough proxies for relative differences in program cost that were established in the 1960s and underpin the Ontario funding system: therefore they serve as an important reference point. Differences in funding practices were addressed by using multiple measures that focus on provincial operating grants and tuition revenue. The Working Group has also identified a number of caveats that should be taken into consideration when assessing the comparative information. Methodology Overview Numerators and Denominators The focus of this study is on per-student revenue available to universities for basic operations. Revenue is defined as provincial grants and tuition in a) the Operating Fund and b) the Special Purpose and Trust Fund. It does not include funding that goes directly to students in programs like the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) or via tax s. It also does not consider funding transferred from one province to educate its students in another, except to the extent the funding is reflected at the institutional level. Further, it does not include provincial funding in support of sponsored research. As a result, this study serves to compare the amount of operating funding that institutions in each province receive on average rather than the total amount of funding that a given province expended on university education. The basic methodology is straightforward. It involves dividing a measure(s) for revenue (numerator) by a measure(s) for enrolment (denominator) for a set of universities and then aggregating the results to the provincial level. However, due to the differences noted above and corresponding constraints of the revenue and enrolment datasets, various adjustments are needed. The following provides an overview of the methodology with key adjustments and associated caveats. More detailed notes are included in Part 2 and the appendices. Please note that in an effort to test the sensitivity of some adjustments, a large number of revenue and enrolment variations were tested, but only a subset appears in this report. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 4 of 63

11 Key data sources and assumptions The key data sources are the Postsecondary Information System (PSIS) for enrolment and the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) financial report for revenue. Institutional data are aggregated at the provincial level. Appendix I lists the institutions by province. Student enrolment The enrolment analysis starts with fall-term, full-time and part-time headcount enrolment in diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate (master s and doctorate) levels, including both domestic and international students. 2 The data was the latest available from Statistics Canada and there is no national measure for full-time equivalent enrolment. Only the fall-term count is available, which may not accurately reflect the total year-round level of enrolment activity. Relative differences in activity levels in other terms (such as spring/summer term) in each province would affect the comparability of the enrolment information and would have an effect on per-student funding levels. PSIS headcounts were available by Classification of Instruction Program (CIP) codes. In some provinces the coding was provided by the institutions themselves (e.g. the Maritime provinces), while in others they were mapped from other coding systems by Statistics Canada (e.g. Ontario). 3 The conversion of PSIS full-time and part-time headcount into Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) and then into weighted FTEs (BIUs) involved a number of steps. Converting headcounts to FTEs followed the Statistics Canada convention of equating one FTE to either one full-time headcount or 3.5 part-time headcounts (i.e., FTEs=full-time headcounts + 1/3.5 part-time headcounts). Readers should note that there are different definitions of full-time and part-time enrolment in the PSIS information; some institutions use 60% of a full load as the threshold for full-time while others use up to 80%. Significant differences in practice by province may affect the comparability of the enrolment information. FTEs by CIP were mapped to Ontario s Formula Program of Study (FORPOS) codes the codes that are associated with BIU weights (see Appendix II). Since some of the Ontario BIU weights are degree and year dependent (e.g., Honours Arts has a higher weight than General Arts; the upper years of a program (years 2-4) may have a higher weight than the first year), a proportional distribution of Ontario enrolments in those programs was applied to the calculated FTE enrolments elsewhere. In some provinces where first year students may be taught in university colleges and/or college transfer programs, the application of the Ontario proportional distribution may overstate the proportion of enrolments that are attributed to first year, understate the number of weighted enrolments overall, and therefore overstate the revenue per student. For example, in Quebec, where the majority of students study for one year at a Collège d'enseignement Général et Professionnel (CEGEP) and then transfer to a university, the standard university program length is three years. By applying the Ontario year level proportions the Quebec weighted enrolments are undercounted. The Working Group attempted to mitigate the first year students effect in some scenarios by applying an Ontario weighting matrix that only includes upper year students. In theory, such an adjustment would 2 The analysis excludes enrolments reported as Other program level which includes program levels not applicable or non-program (taking non- courses or taking courses without seeking a credential). This exclusion had a particular effect on Athabasca University where a large proportion of enrolments fall into that specific category. Accordingly Athabasca has been excluded from the analysis. There are differences among the provinces in the proportion of total enrolments categorized as Other program level. 3 Many Ontario institutions began to self-report CIP codes in , but the enrolment counts for that year were not yet available from Statistics Canada. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 5 of 63

12 increase the number of weighted units and reduce funding per unit. Applied to Quebec, however, the result was an increase in weighted units by just over 2%, which intuitively seems much too low. We note that the mix of disciplines in Quebec by CIP includes a lower proportion of enrolments in humanities and physical and life sciences than in Ontario disciplines that would be affected by the attempted weight adjustment. Quebec also has a higher proportion of enrolments in undergraduate education and business than Ontario as well as a higher proportion of graduate students disciplines and an entire level that would be unaffected by the weight adjustment. These differences may offset any increase in weighted funding units brought about by the adjustment to the CIP to FORPOS map described above. The findings are inconclusive and the issue of how to quantify the funding impact of different PSE structures warrants further study. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 6 of 63

13 Distribution of CIP disciplines for undergraduates in Quebec relative to Ontario 4 Education 6.6% Performing arts and communications 0.5% Humanities and social sciences (9.2%) Business, management and public admin 4.6% Physical and life sciences (5.0%) Mathematics and computer sciences (1.3%) Architecture and engineering 3.0% Agriculture and natural resources (0.3%) Health, parks, recreation and fitness 0.7% In translating FTEs by CIP into FTEs by FORPOS (for BIU weighting purposes) the match is not always perfect. There are programs in other provinces that are not present in Ontario and vice-versa. The match of diploma programs is especially tricky given the limited number of such specialized programs. The number of diploma enrolments is relatively small, so the overall impact is regarded as minor, with the exception of Quebec where diploma enrolments represent approximately 15% of undergraduate enrolment, and over 5% of graduate enrolments (see Part 3 Table 3). In Ontario, a diploma and a degree program in the same discipline will have the same FORPOS code, but may or may not have the same BIU weight. In most cases diploma programs are either stand-alone and do not have degree-level equivalent (such as FORPOS 134, medical interns and residents) so the weight is discrete; or the BIU weight for a diploma and a degree program in the same discipline is the same. There is a small proportion of enrolments in diploma programs where the BIU weights are lower than those in the corresponding degree programs. This created a complication when the mapping was applied to other provinces. To address this issue, we tested two approaches: i) using degree BIU weights for both credentials, and ii) blending them by applying distinct BIU weights where possible, but assigning the same weight when the BIU weight is missing from one of the credentials. Assigning only degree weights to all programs probably overstates the number of weighted funding units and understates the revenue per student. The blended method creates fewer weighted funding units and is likely the more accurate approach. As noted previously, in the PSIS CIP for Ontario was assigned by Statistics Canada, using reported specialty major (SPEMAJ) codes 5 rather than self-reported by individual institutions. The Working Group built a map using the CIP-FORPOS distribution obtained from Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU), since all Ontario institutions reported CIP that year. As a result, the PSIS enrolments in this study were converted into FORPOS disciplines using the proportional distribution of enrolments. While there are shifts in program enrolments between fall 2008 and fall 2010, the effect is seen as minimal. 4 Source: PSIS (2008) 5 SpecialtyMajor (SPEMAJ), the coding system Statistics Canada used prior to the adoption of CIP. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 7 of 63

14 In sum, the methodology for constructing comparable enrolment figures is necessarily based on multiple steps that attempt to overcome the comparability challenges associated with 10 different PSE structures and the transitional status of CIP reporting 6 in PSIS. Financial information A joint undertaking of Statistics Canada and the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO), the Financial Information of Universities and College (FIUC) survey is the basic reference for university financial information in Canada. Information from the survey is used to construct the CAUBO report, which includes the information for CAUBO members only and is also a major source of information for all Statistics Canada higher education financial reports. The CAUBO report provides a standardized format with reporting guidelines, but there are some reporting differences that affect the comparability of the information. For example, provincial grants can include funding from all provincial ministries that may serve some non-core uses and distort the revenue picture. Provinces differ in their funding practices regarding disciplines with some providing direct support from their ministry, while others provide support directly from the PSE ministry, or from both sources. Physician payment arrangements (in the form of provincial grants) differ by province, and in some cases, by institution within a province thus potentially distorting the revenue picture. As well, differences in provincial tuition and student aid policy can influence the comparability of tuition revenues. Nevertheless, the CAUBO report provides a reasonably comparable set of information, especially when aggregated to the provincial level and focused on specific revenue items: provincial government grants and tuition. 7, 8 To improve comparability, we modeled a number of approaches to recognize differences in funding policies and practices. These include: examining the General Operating Fund separately and then adding the Special Purpose Fund; focusing on grants from the higher education ministry in each province, and then total provincial grants from all ministries minus grants from the ministry, and finally total provincial grants; and examining gross tuition revenue and then subtracting institutional student assistance expenditures to arrive at an estimate of net tuition revenue that more accurately reflects the level of revenue that can be used for core operations. The reader should note that while the results of the calculations using the revenue and enrolment data appear to be precise amounts, there is a margin of error associated with each specific figure CIP reporting is under review in Alberta and Quebec. 7 Provincial government grants and tuition represent approximately 86% of Operating Revenue in Ontario universities similar to other proportion in other provinces. The remaining revenue, roughly 14%, often referred to as Other Income includes ancillary fees, investment income, expendable some and/or in-kind donations and program specific federal/municipal grants. 8 The analysis excludes income from Endowments because income from Endowments is restricted for designated purposes by the donor. However, to provide further information about Endowments in Ontario and elsewhere please see Appendix IV. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 8 of 63

15 Results The revenue measures were divided by various measures of student enrolment unweighted FTEs, weighted FTEs (BIUs), and relative grant weights, the latter based on the grant-only portion of Ontario s Basic Operating Income (BOI). Accordingly, the resulting analysis includes one unweighted FTE count and two weighting schemes one used to calculate grant and fee revenue per weighted student (i.e., BIU weighting), and the other used to calculate grant revenue per weighted student (i.e., relative grant weighting). The results of the analysis are consistent across all different scenarios: Regardless of the per-student funding measure, Ontario s relative position is the lowest (tenth) or second lowest (ninth) among the ten provinces. The Working Group regards the following model to be the one that best reflects core operating funding: o o o provincial grants, net of -related funding; tuition revenue after subtracting expenditures on scholarships and student financial aid; and BIU-weighted enrolments, with diplomas and degrees blended (i.e., apply respective BIU weights where possible, but assign the same weight when a BIU weight is missing from one of the credentials). The preceding model indicates that Ontario revenue per BIU weighted student averaged $7,024 in , $1,049 less than the average of the rest of Canada. The difference between Ontario funding per student and the average of the rest of Canada translates into a $768 million gap on a BIU weighted student basis. In comparisons of provincial grants only, Ontario always ranks last (tenth). Based on the preceding model that includes all provincial grants net of -related funding, Ontario universities receive about 65% to 75% of the average level of the rest of Canada in per-student funding from provincial grants. When tuition revenue is added to the grants, Ontario ranks either ninth or tenth. In scenarios using provincial grants net of -related funding, and tuition revenue after subtracting expenditures on scholarships and student financial aid, Ontario universities receive 80% to 95% of the average level of the rest of Canada in per-student revenue. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 9 of 63

16 Part 2. Summary Tables Summary Table 1 Funding per student in Ontario, all scenarios General Operating Fund Grants Only Grants + tuition Grants + tuition - scholarship I. Leading ministry II. Net of funding III. Total provincial grants IV. Leading ministry + tuition V. Net of funding + tuition VI. Total provincial grants + tuition VII. Leading ministry + tuition - scholarship VIII. Net of funding + tuition - scholarship IX. Total provincial grants + tuition - scholarship No program adjustments $8,186 $8,233 $8,719 $14,706 $14,753 $15,239 $13,557 $13,603 $14,089 Diploma and degree blended Annual BIU $4,227 $4,251 $4,502 $7,594 $7,618 $7,869 $7,000 $7,024 $7,275 Diploma and degree weighting weighted $4,223 $4,247 $4,498 $7,587 $7,611 $7,862 $6,994 $7,018 $7,269 Diploma and degree blended Grants $3,112 $3,130 $3,314 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A weighting 9 Diploma and degree weighted $3,108 $3,126 $3,310 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A General Operating & Special Purpose and Trust No program adjustments $8,272 $8,368 $8,969 $14,792 $14,888 $15,489 $13,642 $13,738 $14,339 Diploma and degree blended Annual BIU $4,272 $4,321 $4,631 $7,638 $7,688 $7,998 $7,045 $7,094 $7,404 Diploma and degree weighting $4,268 $4,317 $4,627 $7,632 $7,681 $7,991 $7,038 $7,088 $7,398 weighted Diploma and degree blended Grants $3,145 $3,181 $3,409 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diploma and degree weighting weighted $3,141 $3,177 $3,405 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 Since the grants weighting only concerns the grants portion of Basic Operating Income, this method is not applicable to scenarios that include tuition. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 10 of 63

17 Summary Table 2 Average Funding, Ontario as a Percentage of the rest of Canada, all scenarios General Operating Fund Grants Only Grants + tuition Grants + tuition - scholarship I. Leading ministry II. Net of funding III. Total provincial grants IV. Leading ministry + tuition V. Net of funding + tuition VI. Total provincial grants + tuition VII. Leading ministry + tuition - scholarship VIII. Net of funding + tuition - scholarship IX. Total provincial grants + tuition - scholarship No program adjustments 64.84% 64.79% 67.82% 86.20% 86.06% 88.13% 82.04% 81.91% 84.08% Diploma and degree blended Annual BIU 68.88% 68.82% 72.04% 91.56% 91.41% 93.61% 87.14% 87.01% 89.32% Diploma and degree weighting weighted 69.45% 69.40% 72.64% 92.33% 92.18% 94.39% 87.87% 87.74% 90.06% Diploma and degree blended Grants 69.61% 69.55% 72.80% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diploma and degree weighting weighted 70.36% 70.30% 73.59% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A General Operating & Special Purpose and Trust No program adjustments 64.71% 64.59% 66.32% 85.91% 85.60% 86.24% 81.78% 81.50% 82.29% Diploma and degree blended Annual BIU 68.74% 68.61% 70.44% 91.26% 90.93% 91.61% 86.87% 86.58% 87.42% Diploma and degree weighting weighted 69.32% 69.18% 71.03% 92.02% 91.69% 92.37% 87.60% 87.30% 88.15% Grants weighting Diploma and degree blended 69.47% 69.33% 71.19% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diploma and degree weighted 70.22% 70.08% 71.96% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 11 of 63

18 Summary Table 3 Ranking of Ontario, all scenarios General Operating Fund Grants Only Grants + tuition Grants + tuition - scholarship I. Leading ministry II. Net of funding III. Total provincial grants IV. Leading ministry + tuition V. Net of funding + tuition VI. Total provincial grants + tuition VII. Leading ministry + tuition - scholarship VIII. Net of funding + tuition - scholarship IX. Total provincial grants + tuition - scholarship No program adjustments Diploma and degree Annual BIU weighting blended Diploma and degree weighted Diploma and degree Grants weighting blended N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diploma and degree weighted N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A General Operating & Special Purpose and Trust No program adjustments Diploma and degree Annual BIU weighting blended Diploma and degree weighted Diploma and degree Grants weighting blended N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diploma and degree weighted N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 12 of 63

19 Part 3: Detailed methodology I. Institutions selected Only those institutions reported in both PSIS and CAUBO are included. The University of Regina is included in non-weighted scenarios given its size and prominence in Saskatchewan, although it is not reported in PSIS and cannot be mapped to weighted enrolments. In British Columbia, four institutions are included (the University of British Columbia, the University of Northern British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, and the University of Victoria). They represent 86.8% of the total enrolment (86.2% of the undergraduates and 90.2% of graduates) in the province. Affiliates: Both Statistics Canada and CAUBO reported separately some affiliates that self-report; the rest are counted with the main campus. In PSIS, the main campus and the separately reported affiliates are aggregated to a parent institution. Because of the aggregation in PSIS, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to purge all affiliates. Therefore, all affiliates are included and, where reported separately in CAUBO, have been rolled up into the parent institution. [A complete list of institutions can be found in Appendix I.] II. Enrolment Data Source: Statistics Canada Postsecondary Information System (PSIS) via AUCC, report year Data comparability 1) Matching institutional CIP reports to PSIS CIP reports. Working Group members checked their institutional records to ensure PSIS is accurate. Generally the two records matched when records flagged with QUALIF=23 in University Statistical Enrolment Report (USER) were excluded 10,11. Another discrepancy is that medical residents are categorized as undergraduate in Ontario but as other graduate level residency (medical, dental, veterinary) in PSIS. Medical residents reported under graduate level in PSIS were assigned to Undergraduate FORPOS 134 Medical Interns and Residents which is a diploma-only category. 2) Fall-term versus full-year counts: Funding information is for the whole year, so enrolment information ideally should reflect activity levels for all terms. PSIS only reported fall-term counts because not all institutions reported spring/summer activities to Statistics Canada. If the ratio of spring/summer enrolment to fall enrolment is roughly similar in each province, there would be no need to adjust for provincial differences. Statistics Canada was contacted for the data to compare 10 QUALIF is an element in the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) University Statistical Enrolment Report (USER) that denotes qualification being sought. QUALIF 23 includes: continuing/upgrading post-bachelor courses but not for a second Bachelor degree or graduate school. 11 Note that revenue from the QUALIF 23 students cannot be excluded, therefore if it were possible to add in the corresponding enrolments it would drive the Ontario funding per student down further. However, given that all provinces have this issue, the ranking is unlikely to change. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 13 of 63

20 the proportions of spring/summer enrolments relative to fall, but unfortunately the required information was not available. 3) International students are a significant component of the enrolment. In all provinces but Ontario, institutions receive operating grant funding for international students: provinces either explicitly provide funding for incremental international enrolments, include international students in their historical funding base, or make no distinction between international and domestic students in the provision of operating grants. Moreover, tuition revenue and scholarship/student financial aid expense associated with international students are inextricable in the CAUBO report. If the Working Group were to redo the analysis after removing international enrolments to approach a proxy for Ontario s eligible for funding enrolments, the result would not likely improve Ontario s per-student funding rank. Ontario has a smaller proportion of international enrolments than most other provinces, so removing them from the other provinces would likely increase their per-student funding. Table 1 provides the domestic/international students split by level of study and province. 4) The University of Regina did not report to PSIS, so enrolment by CIP code was unavailable. Fall 2008 enrolment information was obtained from the University of Regina sources and used for the unweighted calculations. In weighted calculations, the University of Regina was excluded. 5) The reporting of enrolment by CIP is under review in Quebec and Alberta. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 14 of 63

21 Table domestic and international headcounts split by level of study and province, selected institutions only (University of Regina excluded), full-time AND part-time fall headcounts, domestic and international distribution, by level of study and province (selected institutions ONLY) Domestic % International % Total headcounts Undergraduate NFL 96.2% 3.8% 10,755 PEI 92.2% 7.9% 3,591 NS 91.5% 8.5% 32,664 NB 89.7% 10.3% 19,533 QC 93.6% 6.4% 187,725 ON 94.7% 5.3% 361,425 MB 91.9% 8.1% 32,856 SK 95.6% 4.4% 15,375 AB 95.1% 4.9% 60,963 BC 92.0% 8.0% 76,320 Graduate NFL 85.2% 14.8% 2,541 PEI 96.2% 3.8% 237 NS 88.7% 11.3% 6,255 NB 80.4% 19.6% 2,277 QC 87.2% 12.9% 57,189 ON 86.7% 13.3% 60,444 MB 82.5% 17.5% 4,134 SK 94.4% 5.6% 2,556 AB 80.3% 19.7% 15,576 BC 80.5% 19.5% 15,897 Total NFL 94.1% 5.9% 13,296 PEI 92.4% 7.6% 3,828 NS 91.0% 9.0% 38,919 NB 88.7% 11.3% 21,810 QC 92.1% 7.9% 244,914 ON 93.6% 6.4% 421,869 MB 90.9% 9.1% 36,990 SK 95.4% 4.6% 17,931 AB 92.2% 7.8% 72,096 BC 90.0% 10.0% 92,217 COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 15 of 63

22 Measurement construction a) No program mix adjustments (unweighted enrolments) FTE basis (1 FT= 1 FTE, 1 PT=1/3.5 FTE) Several formulas for estimating FTEs from headcounts were tested using Ontario data. Ultimately the decision was made to adopt the convention that one FTE equals either one fall full-time headcount or 3.5 part-time headcounts. This is a formula most frequently used by other Canadian institutions and organizations. 12 b) Adjusted for program mix CIP 2 digit level There are differences by province in the program distribution of enrolment (Chart 1 13 ) and in the distribution of enrolment by program level (Table 2). Chart 1 indicates that most differences in program distribution are within 5%. Analysis at a more detailed level indicates more significant differences. 12 For example, the same convention was used by the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec (CREPUQ) in a similar study conducted in 2010: See Le financement des universités québécoises comparé à celui des universités des autres provinces canadiennes. by the University of Manitoba in 2011 umanitoba.ca/admin/oia/media/selected_stats.pdf and by the University of Calgary in 13 We also tested for humanities and social sciences combined as a large group in case the variation was due to categorization differences. The distribution was similarly variant. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 16 of 63

23 Program Percentage Distribution Relative to Ontario Fall Headcounts, Full-time & Part-time, Undergraduates & Graduates 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% % % NL PE NS NB QC MB SK AB BC [Chart 1. Program percentage distribution relative to Ontario by province, selected institutions only, fall headcounts, undergraduates AND graduates, full-time AND part-time] Table 2 suggests that Ontario s proportions of undergraduate and graduate enrolment are different relative to a number of provinces notably Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. With respect to Ontario, each of those provinces reports a somewhat lower proportion of undergraduate enrolment and higher proportion of graduate enrolment. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 17 of 63

24 Table undergraduate and graduate fall headcounts split by province, selected institutions only, full-time AND part-time constructed FTEs, distribution of undergraduates and graduates, by province (selected institutions ONLY) Province Undergraduate % Graduates % Total FTEs NFL 84.6% 15.4% 11,625 PEI 95.5% 4.5% 3,438 NB 87.2% 12.9% 34,280 NS 91.2% 8.8% 19,256 QC 77.0% 23.0% 189,418 ON 86.2% 13.8% 378,362 MB 88.7% 11.3% 30,615 SK Regina included 87.1% 12.9% 26,235 SK Regina excluded 85.4% 14.6% 16,810 AB 82.0% 18.0% 66,267 BC 80.6% 19.4% 74,723 Given acknowledged differences in program costs by discipline, and between undergraduate and graduate programs, the methodology had to address differences in enrolment mix by discipline and program level. The chosen method was to use the PSIS FTE count by level (undergraduate and graduate) and by the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). With respect to CIP, there are four levels of grouping with increasingly higher resolution: primary, 2-digit, 4-digit and 6-digit the latter only available via special order. A closer examination revealed, however, that there were a number of discrepancies between Ontario reporting and PSIS records at the 4-digit level. Therefore, the decision was made to focus on program adjustment at the CIP 2-digit level. Calculated FTEs by CIP were attributed to FORPOS using a derived mapping from the enrolment file of MTCU. Although PSIS enrolment is for , the mapping was adopted since is the only year that CIP was self-reported by all institutions in Ontario, rather than being assigned by Statistics Canada. The Calculated FTEs by CIP were mapped to FORPOS by diploma/degree and level (undergraduate, master s, doctoral) to reflect discipline and program level differences. After each CIP was mapped into the FORPOS codes, the weights were applied to compute a weighted enrolment figure. When the mapping was applied separately to undergraduate, master s and doctoral level, it became apparent that in some provinces, diploma students were distributed into FORPOS codes that had only degree-level enrolments in Ontario, and vice versa. To address the problem, the Ontario weights were assigned to the diploma (degree) programs in other provinces where there was a match, and, the same weight was applied to both credentials where one of the BIU weights is missing. In another variation the diplomas/certificates were both assigned the degree weights for both undergraduate and graduate COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 18 of 63

25 levels. 14 This latter measure overestimates the number of weighted students by a small margin since diploma/certificate students do not constitute a major part of the enrolment except in Quebec. 15 Table 3 shows the diploma/certificate and degree students by level of study and province. Table constructed FTEs, diploma/certificate and degree students split, by level of study and province, selected institutions only (Regina excluded)] constructed FTEs, diploma/certificate and degree students distribution, by level of study and province (selected institutions ONLY) Province Undergraduate Graduate 16 Diploma/certificate % Degree % Total FTEs Diploma/certificate % Degree % Total FTEs NFL 2.6% 97.4% 9, % 99.4% 1,795 PEI 3.6% 96.4% 3,282 0% 100% 156 NB 3.9% 96.1% 29, % 99.7% 4,409 NS 4.8% 95.2% 17, % 99.6% 1,690 QC 14.6% 85.4% 145, % 94.6% 43,483 ON 0.2% 99.8% 325, % 99.8% 52,380 MB 2% 98% 27, % 99.5% 3,450 SK 1.5% 98.5% 14, % 99.1% 2,455 AB 0.3% 99.7% 55, % 99.7% 12,589 BC 3.8% 96.2% 60, % 99.4% 14,470 In addition to BIU weights, a variation was used to focus only on the grant portion of revenue. The common unit measure for grant distribution is the value of a BIU, which represents Basic Operating Income per Basic Income Unit, or BOI per BIU. In the Ontario funding formula the BIU value represents more than a simple unit grant value. A BIU consists of a grant component and a historic tuition fee component ( formula fee or standard fee ). To determine the grant component for one FTE, one needs to multiply the value of the BIU by the BIU weight then subtract the formula fee. Therefore General Arts or General Sciences at weight=1.0 would receive (at rates): $5, x $2,386 =$3, in grant. A weight 2.0 program would receive $5, x $2,386 =$8, or 2.78 times more in grant than the weight 1.0 program. We have recognized this non-linearity by adjusting the Ontario weights to reflect relative grants. The basis of the relative grant weights we used is $3, for weight 1.0 programs, as explained above. For BIU weights and formula fees and a calculated relative grant weights, see Appendix II. 14 In Ontario in , undergraduate diploma enrolments represented approximately 2.6% of total undergraduate FTE enrolments. Of these, 9% were in diploma programs where the diploma weight was lower than the degree weight and there was also enrolment in both streams. The remaining 91% included diploma-only programs (such as FORPOS medical interns and residents, which alone accounts for about 57% of all diploma enrolments) or had the same weight as in the degree program. 15 We also tested degree students only, which completely excludes diploma/certificate students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The derived numbers underestimated enrolments for all provinces, but especially for Quebec where the proportion of diploma/certificate enrolments is considerably higher. In this case the revenue from diploma/certificate students would still be included. 16 Master s and doctoral qualifying years are counted as master s and doctoral degrees respectively; medical residency is counted as a graduate degree program in this table although it is mapped to an undergraduate FORPOS code in the study, following the Ontario practice. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 19 of 63

26 The preceding methodology attempts to normalize the variance across provinces in discipline mix and program level by attributing enrolments by CIP to FORPOS categories in Ontario and then assigning Ontario based weights. The weighting scheme is summarized in the following chart: COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 20 of 63

27 [Chart - Weighting Scheme] PSIS (fall term headcounts) FTE = full-time headcounts + 1/3.5 part-time headcounts 1) Constructed FTEs (unweighted) CIP-to-FORPOS mapping by level (Ontario record) Annual BIU Ontario annualized BIU weights (Appendix II) Relative grant weighting Calculated relative grants weights (Appendix II) 2) Diploma and degree students weighted by respective weights where possible with assigned weights where the weight is missing 3) Diploma and degree students weighted by degree weights - Annual BIU weighting, degree weights 4) Diploma and degree students weighted by respective weights where possible with assigned weights where the weight is missing 5) Diploma and degree students weighted by degree weights - Relative grant weighting, degree weights - Annual BIU weighting, blended weights - Relative grant weighting, blended weights [See Appendix III for an example of how enrolments are weighted in each scenario] COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 21 of 63

28 Caveats There are a number of caveats associated with the PSIS enrolment data and the methodology developed for the project: 1) The absence of a standard national definition for full-time and part-time enrolment means that the provincial figures may not be comparable. The distinction between full-time and part-time differs from institution to institution, with the threshold typically varying from 60% to 80% of a full course load. As a result, the FT + PT/3.5 conversion formula may be more accurate in some provinces than others. 2) The raw enrolment activity data basing the analysis is only fall-term, but is used to construct FTEs that act as a proxy for year-round activity. If there are significant differences in the level of spring/summer activity among universities when aggregated to the provincial level, the enrolment activity may not align with the revenue. 3) Enrolment by CIP is dependent on the appropriate classification of programs and attribution of enrolment by CIP. There has been no attempt to verify the enrolments by CIP as reported by Statistics Canada. 4) Adjustments of first year students: In provinces where the system is structured so that a substantial amount of first and possibly second year activity is conducted in colleges or university-colleges, the enrolment activity and reported revenue is not strictly comparable to the situation in Ontario. The reported enrolment numbers are more akin to Ontario s upper year enrolments. The most prominent example is in Quebec where most residents do their first year of postsecondary education in a Collège d'enseignement Général et Professionnel (CEGEP) and their remaining three years in a university. To address this issue, the Working Group tried to mitigate the first-year students effect by applying an Ontario weighting matrix that only includes upper year students. This should increase the average program weight of the province, push the number of weighted funding units up and therefore push the average revenue per weighted funding unit down. Applied to Quebec, this method only produced a 2% increase in funding per weighted FTE, which intuitively seems much too low. The Working Group continues to seek other methods to analyze the funding implications of different provincial PSE structures. 5) Some degree programs may have been reported as diploma/certificate programs in previous years (or will be in future years), and vice versa. One example in Ontario is an agriculture program at Guelph. Starting in , Guelph began to report a large number of enrolments from lower BIU weight diploma programs in affiliated agricultural colleges. Since it is the only university in Ontario reporting into FORPOS category 101 agriculture, the average weight of the category in the CIP to FORPOS map from is lower than it was in the year of the data, The effect of this anomaly on the whole dataset is very small. 6) data from MTCU was used to create a CIP to FORPOS map because the CIP assignments were felt to be more accurate. Between and , however, there was some shifting of program mix, particularly away from lower-weight general programs to higherweight honours programs. This means that the number of weighted FTEs may be overstated relative to the actual situation in , thus understating the funding per weighted FTE. COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 22 of 63

29 III. Revenue provincial grants and tuition fees Data Source: Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) report Data comparability 1) Fund sources In the CAUBO report provincial grants may include grants from a number of provincial ministries. For most of the universities, the grants from the leading ministry (e.g., MTCU for Ontario) account for over 85% of the total provincial grants. It was recognized that many grants from ministries may be pass-throughs to physicians in teaching hospitals and thus distort the funding picture. Ultimately, three measures were tested: leading ministry only, total provincial grants net of grants, and total provincial grants. 2) Special Purpose Fund In an attempt to account for all provincial operating support it was necessary to consider including provincial grants that may be reported in the Special Purpose and Trust fund. For Ontario universities, these grants include Ontario Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology (OGSST) and the Ontario Trust for Student Support (OTSS). George Dew from CAUBO indicated for other provinces, the provincial grants could include some restricted funds or special scholarships. Both inclusion and exclusion were tested. 3) Tuition fees Non- tuition is excluded from tuition revenue because the PSIS enrolments only include enrolments. 4) Student aid/scholarships Given the existence of Ontario s Student Assistance Guarantee (OSAG) and Tuition Set-Aside requirements and that universities must allocate a portion of the tuition revenue to student aid, it was decided to test a measure of net tuition by deducting the CAUBO expenditure category Scholarships, bursaries and prizes from reported tuition revenue. Measurement construction: Three factors were considered when testing the appropriate measure of funding: category of funding, source, and adjustments. Two or three variations were tested for each factor, totaling 18 measures. Category Source Adjustments General Operating Only From leading ministry only Grants only General Operating plus Total provincial grants net of Grants plus tuition Special Purpose and Trust -related funding Total provincial grants Grants plus tuition less scholarship expenditure Total measures tested: = 18 COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES / CONSEIL DES UNIVERSITÉS DE L ONTARIO Page 23 of 63