Faculty Salaries

• Virginia has used some sort of benchmark system for determining faculty salary increases since the 1960's
• Since 1978, the faculty salary comparisons have been developed using national benchmark groups similar to the Carnegie classifications
• A revised benchmarking system was created to reflect the regional and national patterns of recruiting for each institution in 1986
• At this time, the Commonwealth set a goal for faculty salaries to reach the 60th percentile of each institution's respective peer group
• This goal was first achieved in 1989
• During the early 1990's, salary increases were typically tied to increases for other state employees and the institutions fell behind relative to the 60th percentile goal
• The Commonwealth again funded the 60th percentile goal in 2000

Enrollment Growth

• Funding for enrollment growth was provided via a formula called Appendix M
• The formula was created in the late 1960's and was refined by SCHEV in the late 1970's
• The model contained established guidelines for instructional and support positions .and provided guidelines for library materials - the guidelines were based on enrollment - mostly FTE but provisions for headcount were also made
• The model was abandoned in the early 1990s due to the recession; enrollment growth since, if funded, has been funded on an "ad hoc" basis
• In 1994-96, funding was provided to institutions who exceeded system-wide average enrollment growth
• In 1996-98 and 1998-2000 enrollment funding was provided to institutions with greater than two percent annual growth - institutions were expected to absorb enrollment growth of two percent or less annually with restructuring savings
• Funding for enrollment growth, as with many other initiatives, was typically "fund split" meaning that a portion of the funds for the initiative were to come from expected tuition and fee revenue and a portion from the general fund; the fund split was derived using a formula determined by SCHEV

Operations and Maintenance of New Facilities

• Funding has been provided to colleges and universities for new E&G facilities that are built within a biennium
• Funding is based on each institution's physical plant costs for existing plant
• Funds for O&M have typically been "fund split" -- paid in part from tuition and fee revenues generated through new enrollment, out of state tuition increases and/or in-state tuition increases (pre-tuition constraints)

Hardware

• Funding for technology has been funded via the Higher Education Equipment Trust Fund since it was established in 1986
• $385 million has been funded to date in equipment purchases
• Debt service on bonds sold by the Virginia College Building Authority is provided by the General Fund
• Purchases support replacement of obsolete equipment; provide students access to technology; establish state-wide networks for instructional technology; provide technology for faculty; provide student support services; and provide for installation of management systems

Operating Technology

• Funds for operating technology have been provided to institutions to support the purchase of software, training of faculty and staff in use of technology; development of faculty in use of instructional technologies and course development; other needs as they relate to operating technology
• Funds were first provided in 1997 and were again provided in 1998-00
• Although SCHEV staff have developed a methodology for making operating recommendations in this area, a formal policy does not exist

Nonpersonal Service Funding

• Funding for nonpersonal services has not been provided in more than two decades
• Typically the state has not provided for inflationary increases for nonpersonal service expenses
• This has recently been an issue for institutions especially since they have not received funding for enrollment growth or operating funds via formula - in the past, such increases were more easily absorbed with the funding provided via the Appendix M model

• The Commonwealth has typically funded financial aid on an "unmet" need calculation
• Unmet need is derived by the same standards the federal government uses in its definitions of cost
• During the 1990's the Commonwealth has hovered around meeting 35% of unmet need
• Recently the Commonwealth's goal has been set at meeting 50% of unmet need
• In 1999-00, it is estimated that the Commonwealth will meet 43% of the unmet need

Back to the Main Page

Posted: July 20, 1999
By The Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu