Strategic Action FY'97 - FY'01

II. The Future Through the Lens of the Past

In planning for the future it is instructive to view the recent history of the campus as depicted in Figure 2. This diagram is divided into six-year time frames, past, present and future. From 1982-88 the campus was on a stable trajectory. The operating budget, for example, grew an average at 9% per year. The quality of the student body, as measured by the one- dimensional parameter of the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), climbed steadily reaching a high of 1058 in FY89. Student applications were also on the rise, with a high point of 14,885 in-state applications in 1989. Student costs were stable (expressed in FY96 dollars). Research funding was on the ascendant growing at a very healthy 16% per year. (To smooth over fluctuations from year to year, the trend shown is a three year rolling average). Had this trajectory been sustained we would be at $132 million today. Although such growth was not likely in the late 80's and early 90's, when Federal spending priorities began to shift, it is noteworthy that the leveling from FY89 onwards can be attributed almost entirely to the loss of faculty positions. Nevertheless we did reach a level of $71M in FY95, as shown on Figure2, which is the $70,000 per faculty member typical of our peer institutions.

All these trends are indicative of an institution on the move, competitive in attracting students to quality programs with nationally renowned scholars. In fact we were well on our way to gaining recognition as a member of the AAU, the Association of American Universities, the 58 major research Universities in the United States, public and private.

Sadly, these positive trends suffered a devastating blow in the next six year window, from 1988-1994. Throughout the Commonwealth, this was a period of economic instability. At the University, the growth of State funding dropped precipitously so that, overall, the operating budget increased at only 2.9% per year on the average, with a concomitant loss of over 700 faculty and staff. Research funding leveled off as a result, student costs soared by 170%, and both applications and SAT scores plummeted. The effect of this six year window on the aspirations of the University was truly devastating. Cost of living, merit increases, non- discretionary central costs (such as fringe benefits, utilities, ADA compliance etc.) essentially consumed the entire growth of the budget. The University thereby underwent a massive programmatic reallocation of $29 million. (See discussion of Figure 11 in Section V(C) on Reallocation). In fact it can be said accurately that, once mandated costs were covered, all programmatic allocations were made by taking funds away from one area to allocate to another. Over 20 programs suffered cuts in excess of 20%, with two Colleges losing over one-third of the operating budgets.

The institution adjusted to the harsh budget cuts, but was forced to do so in an unplanned way. When executive orders take place mid-year it is hard to engage in strategic planning. Our challenge now is to anticipate realistically the fiscal horizon ahead, and plan for quality within this environment. It is unlikely that higher education will return soon to growth levels of 10%. While we must continue to press for an investment in this public Land Grant-Research University, we must also ensure that we are not plunged once again into coping with sudden shortfalls, since it is much harder now, in a second cycle, to make unplanned reductions of the workforce. Nor can we again compensate for losses of state funding with dramatic tuition and fee increases. It is to this end that the detailed and thoughtful planning process is directed. We must take control of our destiny.

Our aim must be to restore stability and to secure new investments beyond State and Federal Funding through private fund raising and linkages with businesses, industry and foundations. As the third panel of Figure 2 illustrates, we believe that we have already reversed the gloomy trends of the early 90's. Applications are on the rise, with a goal of 12,000 in-state by the end of the decade. Apart from the attractiveness of the institution, as measured by stellar rankings in the recent National Research Councils 10-year study which placed one-third of our programs in the top third nationally, and as advertised through the national success and visibility of our athletics programs, the demographics over the next 18 years will be in our favor as the echo of the baby boom propagates through the high schools to yield a 25% increase in students. This trend will permit us to become more selective, and we have already reversed the SAT decline from the minimum of 994 in FY94 to 1019 in FY96; we aim to reach 1060 in FY2000. Student costs have been brought under control by freezing tuition and fees for each of the last three years, so that the University can once again become more accessible. In FY96 dollars we project a decrease in student cost by the year 2000 to $9,500. Our faculty are strongly competitive in garnering research funds, even in the harshly competitive federal environment, reaching $71 million in FY95. With reasonable support to faculty, we may reach $90 million by the year 2000.

It is noteworthy that these achievements have come about with a growth of State Funding over 1994-1996 of only 2.9%, equal to the average growth during the preceding 6 years. We believe that a continued strategic approach to our future will be key to sustaining a positive trend to the end of the decade, throughout which we project average growth of 3.5% per year. This projection is based on the work of the Planning Group on Financial Resources. [(See discussion of Table III in Section V(A)]. We shall also help ourselves, by generating increased levels of private support. Investment in private fund raising began earlier and, as the figure shows, provided steady growth of 6.5%. Due to greater emphasis on such giving, the increase from FY94 to FY95 was 15% which is twice the recent trend nationally, and twice the average trend for the campus over the prior decade. Private fund raising helps the institution to keep a sharp edge of excellence and complements state funding. We project a level of annual giving of $31M by the year 2000.

The future lies in partnerships with many organizations, including the State, business and industry, foundations, alumni and the federal government. Greater collaboration between institutions will also be important to our future vitality. Our collaboration with Five Colleges, Inc. has a solid foundation, with new possibilities opening up through information technology and interactive distance learning. Outreach, community service and research may augment the more traditional collaborations in teaching and learning. Our regional partnership with the six New England Land Grant Universities is also likely to grow in the years ahead, aided by developments in interactive distance learning. Options to reduce duplication of undersubscribed courses are one possibility. The collaboration across the five Campuses of the University of Massachusetts is still at an embryonic stage, but clearly is rich in opportunity for creative endeavors in all components of the mission. Strategic Action does not address these multi- campus opportunities. They are addressed in the strategic planning underway at the system levels of the various partnerships.

We believe that a Renaissance has begun at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and it can continue into the next millennium. We must control our destiny within all the limitations and opportunities that will be presented to us. While we must be realistic about the fiscal parameters, we must not be solely budget driven; we must also be vision driven. The work of the Task Forces and Working Groups is key to developing a vision for the future. Together with the extensive input and commentary received from the community we shall, over the next year, develop a collective vision. What follows is a starting point.

Table of Contents
Next | A Vision of the Future: Reinventing the Dream