Achieve Optimal Enrolment Outcomes

Optimal enrolment outcomes are essential to the academic viability of programs, the excellence of the student experience and the financial sustainability of the University.

This has become even more important given the government’s transition away from supporting increased enrolment by funding growth, and toward a model based on “enrolment corridors” for each institution. This change is partly a response to the smaller size, or cohort, of what has been the traditional age-group of most university students (i.e., directly from Ontario secondary schools).

Currently, enrolment is the primary determinant of an Ontario university’s revenue, in the form of tuition and/or the government grant per domestic student. In the future, a percentage of the grant will depend upon the university meeting performance goals determined by its Strategic Mandate Agreement. Under the new regime, a university must maintain domestic student numbers (calculated on the basis of a weighted program formula) within the corridor in order to maintain its base grant and ensure that it receives government financial support for its domestic students. The number, origin, diversity and program interest of international students will be futher important considerations.

Optimal enrolment is not only a question of overall student numbers. It involves an appropriate mix of graduate and undergraduate, and domestic and international students. It is a question of managing the relationship between program resources — such as faculty, teaching and research space — and program pedagogical requirements (variable between undergraduate and graduate programs and between subject areas). It requires responding to changes in student interests over time, as well as the changing identities of the student body. This requires flexibility in resource distribution and attention to issues such as diversity and inclusiveness. We also must balance institutional goals such as enhancing reputation while serving local, provincial, national and international communities.

Achieving optimal enrolment outcomes is thus a complex and never-ending process. It requires working to both attract and retain students. It will need a very high level of cooperation across the University (especially between academic units, marketing and communications, and recruitment), continual analysis of trends (demographic, economic, cultural and social) and continuous critical analysis of developments within Brock.

Please provide any ideas or comments you may have on how to advance Brock’s activities over the next few years, to achieve our stated goal of achieving optimal enrolment outcomes.

Questions to be addressed may include the following, but please suggest whatever you think is most important.

1. What criteria should be used to determine “optimal enrolment” (overall headcount, student demographic, government grant per student/per program, entrance average, program choice, domestic/international proportions, etc.)?

2. What revisions to an existing program or programs might contribute to optimizing enrolment in that or those programs?

3. Are there new programs that should be started to optimize enrolment?

4. What marketing and/or recruitment activities are most likely to contribute to optimal enrolment?

5. How do we ensure the university is respectful and responsive to the entire society.

6. How do we respond to specific initiatives such as calls to make universities more welcoming to indigeneous scholars and students?

Objective 1 feedback form

Deliver Outstanding Student Experience

Student experience is now fundamental to a university’s ability to attract and retain students. It is an important component in building a positive reputation.

Gone are the days when universities could focus on culling the best and brightest from among a small elite who were allowed entrance to the academy. Universities now compete to attract students along a wide array of variables. They are seeking to find the appropriate way to manage the important and traditional focus on academic rigour and research excellence, and a student (and their family or other supporters) body that is much more diverse, assertive of its rights and sensitive to the increasing shift of educational costs from the state to students and/or their family.

The student experience reflects the totality of the interaction with an institution. It starts with the application process, continues through participation in courses of study, culminates with graduation and continues as an alumnus. The nature and quality of academic programs offered are key determinants of student decisions about which university to attend. Disciplines, subject areas and programs still matter greatly, and the experience within programs and courses is an important factor in students’ decisions to remain at a university. However, so are opportunities for work-integrated and other kinds of experiential learning, program flexibility, teaching quality, library and other research and study resources, as well as opportunities for direct interactions with professors and involvement in research.

The student experience is also influenced by such things as personal and social safety and inclusiveness, respect for diverse identities, health and wellbeing, access to academic and other forms of support, co-curricular and extra-curricular opportunities, athletic facilities, varsity sports, student clubs, artistic acitivities, food services, housing, chances for part-time employment, cultural amenities on campus and in the wider community, and many other criteria. A dynamic and exciting school spirit is key to an institution’s reputation.

Brock needs to develop strategies that contribute to the most positive student experience that is possible, as we continue to improve our standing as an academic institution.

Please provide any ideas or comments you may have on how to advance Brock’s activities over the next few years, in order to achieve our stated goal of delivering an outstanding student experience.

Objective 2 feedback form

Enhance Educational Programs and Outcomes

The nature and quality of the programs we offer at Brock, and their demonstrable outcomes for students and the communities we serve, is fundamental to the University’s reputation and our ability to achieve optimal enrolment goals and support from alumni, various levels of government, funders and the public in general.

The quality of educational programs can be measured in a variety of ways, and we need to determine what criteria are most important to us. In doing so, we must be mindful of the fact that government and the public increasingly expect publicly-assisted organizations and institutions to prove that they are meeting goals through specified metrics.

The Quality Assurance Framework of The Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance requires that all programs have documented learning outcomes. Strategic Mandate Agreements require that universities meet certain province-wide and institutional-specific goals. In addition, national and international ratings or rankings of universities are published annually. These all have implications for reputation, enrolment, and research funding.

Strategic planning to enhance educational programs needs to involve ideas about new programs and improvements to existing programs, as well as insights into how quality and impact can be measured. Program improvements include, but are not limited to, new programs, revisions to existing programs, methods of course and program delivery, pedagogical innovations, changes to built learning environments, and technological support. Given finite limitations on financial resources, thought also must be directed towards the discontinuation of programs, and how and when we should do this.

There are various ways of measuring outcomes. Common ones are graduation rates, retention rates, achievement of learning objectives, employment rates upon graduation, earnings of graduates over time, overall program economic impact,and National Survey of Student Engagement results. We may wish to develop other means of demonstrating program outcomes: contributions to social innovation, graduate lifetime satisfaction or happiness.

Please provide any ideas or comments you may have on how to advance Brock’s activities over the next few years to achieve our stated goal of enhancing educational programs and outcomes.

Support Increased Research Output and Impact

In 1999, Brock began to move toward becoming a comprehensive university by intensifying its research activities and growing its graduate programs. Since that time the research environment has experienced radical changes globally, nationally and at the provincial level.

In Canada, the past two decades have seen substantial decreases in success rates for individual grant applications to SSHRC and CIHR, while success rates for research funding from NSERC have dropped substantially among small and medium-sized universities. Programs to support research infrastructure also changed. The NSERC Major Equipment and Major Installation Program disappeared, and funding for the NSERC Equipment Grant Program dropped briefly until the program was restructured and renamed.

Around the same time, new programs emerged to support university research. The Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) was established to provide research infrastructure, with requirements for matching funds, and the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program was established to fund outstanding researchers. Many new programs — such as the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE), FedDev, and the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF) — were instituted to direct funding to more applied research. The Tri-Council Agencies (NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR) also developed new programs to partner university researchers with industries and other organizations.

Three general trends in funding for university research have emerged over the last 20 years. One trend is increased competition for obtaining any form of research funding, and a second is toward awarding large grants to competitive research teams, either at an institutional level or to collaborators from different institutions. A third trend is an increasing emphasis on research “outcomes” (i.e. commercialization and other forms of knowledge mobilization) rather than just research “output” (i.e. scholarly publication). Although support for “fundamental” research may appear to shift in one direction or another with changes in government, increased emphasis on knowledge mobilization is a global phenomenon that is not likely to disappear or abate in the foreseeable future.

Brock’s performance in this changing research environment has been very good. Despite increased competitiveness, total external research funding at Brock has risen from just over $13M in 2007 to just over $16M in 2014. More than 60 per cent our total funding comes from agencies outside the Tri-Council, including CRC, CFI, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Research & Innovation, the Ministry of the Environment, OCE and other sources.

Brock researchers continue to secure funding for fundamental research, and many have taken advantage of funding opportunities for applied research. Research teams at Brock have also secured team grants, and many, including CCOVI and the five new transdisciplinary research hubs, actively engage in knowledge mobilization through partnerships with industry and community groups. When Brock’s attempt to obtain major funding from CFREF was unsuccessful, the application was revised, submitted to CHIR and generated more than $1M in funding. Overall, Brock researchers compete well for individual grants, and Brock also has potential to receive major funding for research clusters.

When planning for the next five years, several questions arise about how to support the research enterprise at Brock:

1. What efforts would meet the needs of Brock researches most effectively?
2. Should Brock continue its efforts to support large, transdisciplinary centres, and if so, how? (e.g. form new centres? continue to fund the existing ones?)
3. How should Brock balance its efforts between (a) securing large, institutional grants that fund specific research areas and (b) supporting individual research grants?
4. What major research infrastructure needs are required for the research enterprise?

Please share your comments on the above questions, any suggestions you may have for new initiatives, and any other questions or issues that you think are relevant to establishing our research priorities for the next several years.

Develop Brock’s Excellent Human Resources

The profession of Human Resources (HR) has been undergoing a significant transformation over the previous two decades. What was once an administrative function, concerned only with compliance, has evolved into a profession that can aid the organization’s delivery on strategic priorities through strategic talent management. The need for this professional evolution is tied to the increasing complexity and importance related to “people issues” within organizations.

Brock’s HR department is evolving along these lines, to meet the needs of the University and support its academic mission. Numerous HR projects are or will be helping Brock develop the right talent in the right places at the right time to meet the University’s goals. These include implementing organization design principles and methodology; the new HR information system; reviews and consolidation of important policies; strategic collective bargaining efforts; workforce planning ideology; and a recruitment and retention strategy. A number of key factors need to be agreed on and implemented in order for Brock to meet its future talent needs, attract and retain quality staff and faculty, and develop as a preferred place to work and study.

To develop excellent human resources, it is vital to understand what skills, competencies and talents are needed to meet strategic goals, and how skills need to be aligned and organized.  In short, it is important to understand what talent needs the University must build. In that assessment, both current and future talent needs must be considered. As well, it is important to understand talent needs in all areas and at all levels (e.g. what we need in leadership roles versus individual contributors). For example, it is imperative that Brock continues to attract and retain world-class faculty, in line with our academic mission. Once needs are determined, it is important to effectively attract and retain the right talent for the right roles, putting emphasis on appropriately assessing and identifying candidates for role and organizational fit.  A core component of this work will be the continued effort towards building a diverse and inclusive workforce, reflecting the makeup of our community and the world.

Current employees and faculty are an important resource and key source for future opportunity, especially since, over the past two years, turnover has averaged 5.1 per cent (stable staffing) with approximately 60 per cent of postings filled by internal staff. To effectively utilize this resource, it is important to understand the potential of current employees and strategically develop new capabilities and skills. Motivating, retaining and developing faculty and key staff is an important component for the organization, and will require a focused effort. To continue to meet the University’s strategic needs, a key competency for Brock will be to continue to support the development of leaders in our Faculties. Ensuring administrative employees continue developing to meet Brock’s changing needs is another strategic people competency.

In the 2016-17 budget, personnel costs accounted for approximately 66 per cent of total operating expenses. Organizational success, therefore, is highly dependent on being able to effectively understand what talent is needed, then developing that talent and deploying it effectively to meet Brock’s goals. So it is critical that we develop excellent human resources, and ensure that structures and supports exist to allow them to perform and move Brock forward.

In planning the next five years, several questions arise when considering how to develop Brock’s Excellent Human Resources.

1. What is Brock’s goal when it comes to attracting and developing talent? Do we continue to strive to be a “preferred place to work?”
2. What type of culture are we trying to build at the University, and how do we identify the right people who fit with that culture?
3. What other supports and structures need to be in place in order to support staff performance and organizational outcomes?
4. Are we prepared to invest more heavily in the professional development of all employees?
5. What changes are needed to be more strategic about the University’s investment in its employees?

Support Campus Infrastructure Improvement

The current capital and related projects budget was first established in 2013-14 and has developed over time. The budget primarily concentrates on capital assets, which are discussed below, but also includes costs that are more project-related. An example is the implementation of the new accounting system. It is a significant project that requires one-time implementation funding, even though in the end there really is no tangible item that we will own.

The term “capital asset” refers to tangible items with a useful life greater than one year, or a repair or renovation that extends the useful life of an existing capital asset. Examples include everything from buildings to vehicles to computers and library books.

Although there are many different types of capital assets, the rationale for purchase is usually either the capital assets are required for new investment or for deferred/current maintenance. At the University, recent major new investments include the Cairns and MIWSFPA buildings, while examples of deferred maintenance include the Mackenzie Chown fire alarm system and the recent roof replacements performed around campus.

When considering how to pay for the purchase of capital assets, there are two commonly considered models. One is borrowing and repaying the debt over time, and the other is pay-as-you-go, which means accumulating in advance the funds required to purchase the capital asset. In a university setting, this often refers to funds raised from donations, government grants or in-year budget dollars.

Recognizing that the majority of our capital assets — 97 per cent — relate to land and buildings, we tend to highlight and monitor the condition of our buildings. The common metric for this is called the Facilities Condition Index (FCI). Currently we have an FCI of 0.186, while the Ontario university average is 0.1. This is the result of years of putting off deferred maintenance needs.

Looking back over the past couple of years, the turning point of the capital program really occurred when the Board of Trustees endorsed a motion to invest $6 million in deferred maintenance in the 2014-15 budget.

The $6 million was meant to at least maintain deferred maintenance at current levels. This recognized that, even as deferred maintenance projects are undertaken, new requirements for maintenance will come forward. Looking forward, the funding model forecasts a deferred maintenance funding envelope greater than $6 million, and growing, in order to take into account future maintenance needs as well.

The forecast model includes increased funding from the Facilities Renewal Program, which will be added incrementally to the funding envelope. The other contributions increase at the construction price index, which is illustrated at 2.5 per cent for the forecast. The forecast shows 2.3 per cent growth because direct government contributions are not forecasted to grow, as there is no inflation forecasted into the current formula (these contributions could change in time.)

Once the MIWSFPA and Cairns building debts are repaid, those funds are repurposed to the capital program. And as the remaining residence debts are repaid, those funds are split between the sinking fund and additional incremental dollars for the capital program. This last point recognizes the debt payments originally required to pay for capital assets, and once the debts are repaid, those funds are repurposed to maintain our capital assets as they age. Equally as important, and as already noted, the forecasted FCI does not take into consideration the repurposing, demolition, special one-time funding opportunities (i.e. Goodman School of Business building renewal) or even the sale of assets. These actions could have significant impacts on our FCI.

At this point, Brock University has not developed an “evergreening” process for equipment in faculties/departments. A consultative 5-year plan should be developed and a financial plan put in place.

Please provide feedback on any other suggestions to improve the campus infrastructure.

Please provide feedback on any equipment renewal required to advance the academic mission of your unit/department/faculty.

Enhance mutually beneficial community engagement

Brock’s community impact — and that of our students, alumni, faculty and staff — provides invaluable benefits across Niagara. Knowledge mobilization activities are transferring the latest expertise and innovation into businesses and organizations, while thousands of individuals benefit from Brock programs and services that enhance quality of life and develop peoples’ capacity to reach their full potential.

While Brock’s community engagement has positive impacts on our region’s economic and social wellbeing, there are also advantages for the University itself. Community connections and engagement strengthen Brock as an institution of higher education, in ways ranging from research and experiential learning opportunities, to recruiting faculty, staff and students.

Engaging with businesses and organizations, and leveraging alumni connections, helps Brock provide a wide range of work-integrated learning opportunities, which in turn helps students expand the skills and knowledge developed during their time at university. Combined with Brock’s high-quality academic training, work-integrated learning opportunities help make Brock graduates competitive candidates in the 21^st-century marketplace.

Such collaborations also advance cutting-edge research at the University, and transfer Brock innovation into our host communities, supporting Niagara’s social and economic needs. These partnerships bring research participants into the University and open avenues of funding that are otherwise only available to the private and social service sectors. For some researchers, local engagement is an important extension of their research. Knowledge mobilization opportunities — including lectures, programs and services — can add evidence to substantiate and/or strengthen research outcomes.

A positive reputation in the community, enhanced through effective engagement, directly impacts the University’s long-term sustainability through its recruitment and fund-raising efforts. For example, when we engage youth on or off campus, they not only consider university as an option, but they may see Brock as “their university” and, ideally, their first choice. Similarly, fully engaging our alumni is also key to ensuring that a positive impression of Brock is shared and leveraged, via powerful word-of-mouth throughout their personal and professional networks.

In recent years, community engagement has become increasingly common at Ontario universities, a familiar response to provincial policy shifts that focus on the student experience, differentiation or post-secondary impact on social and economic development of communities.

For our own local community, having a positive awareness of Brock’s contribution through an enhanced marketing and promotional campaign not only enhances our reputation, but helps rally support of community leaders for Brock initiatives, ranging from government funding to local policy development. Helping the public understand how the community benefits from Brock can translate into key philanthropic support. In an era of constrained resources, fundraising must be a significant priority if Brock wants to secure the resources needed to achieve all of our plans.

Please provide any ideas or comments on how to advance Brock’s community engagement activities over the next few years, to achieve our stated goal of enhancing mutually beneficial community engagement through new efforts in communications, alumni engagement, academic outreach, recruitment and fundraising.

Establish a sustainable financial framework

Some may ask, what is a fiscal framework and why do we need one? A fiscal framework documents current and forward-looking thought on budgetary planning. It is hoped that, by documenting this thought and providing some background, collegial discussion can occur to ensure we are investing where investments are needed. For all intents and purposes the framework should be considered a “living document.” Although the framework may evolve, it is anticipated that the core targets established will continue to guide Brock directionally even if specific needs and strategic plans change over time. The framework is designed using comparative metrics and concepts of sustainability. At its core it recognizes that revenues and expenses must balance.

These constraints are coupled with the fact that our revenue is growing by $3 million slower than expenses, assuming flat enrolment and no expansion in service levels. Unless we structurally adjust our spending we will continue to face budget mitigation measures to achieve the Board of Trustees’ mandate of a balanced budget or better. Some may ask, what is happening to the revenue and expense model? We started a project in fiscal 2014-15 on this topic. There have been two reports published to date that can be found at brocku.ca/finance/faculty-and-staff/revenue-expense-allocation-pro.

The revenue and expense model was never intended to be a budget model. It was intended to help identify where revenues and expenses are being spent. This said, in time, as the data requirements for the model are refined, this revenue and expense model could develop into a budgetary model. If that were to happen, it would tie into the overarching fiscal framework. We have a $300-million budget to deploy, and to achieve great results we need to capitalize on the opportunities and meet the challenges that are ahead. We are Brock — One Brock — the sum of its students, faculty, staff, volunteers, supports and the external community. Our margin of error is limited and our budgetary environment is constrained as described below:

Budget Constraints — Limited flexibility

• Majority of revenue is regulated
• Majority of costs are salary, wages and benefits tied to negotiate Collective Agreements

Political environment — No flexibility

• Province’s fiscal flexibility is very limited
• Increasing tuition is politically complicated for the province

Demographics — Negative flexibility

• Demographics indicate a declining cohort of 18-to-20-year-olds in the coming years. This has been worked into our future enrolment estimates.

Financing Structure — No flexibility

• We cannot raise equity
• We must balance our revenue and expenses

Based on the above description, demographics and environment, please provide any suggestions to assist in creating a sustainable fiscal framework.