College Year Report and Tools
The CSU College Year Report is periodically revised to include the indicators described below as tools that may be useful for estimation, planning, and projection purposes. The College Year Report tables referenced in this attachment are now available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/
College Year (CY) FTES Estimates
The following provides an illustration of one methodology for estimating college FTES, using the following College Year Report table.
Table 23: Ratios of AcademicYear, FullTime Equivalent Students to Fall FullTime Equivalent Students, 199293 to 200304 in the College Year Report provides statistics on the relationship between AY and fall FTES.
Suppose that CSU Los Angeles had an Opening Fall 2004 FTES count of 15,000 and that its summer 2004 term FTES was 7,002, and its annualized summer quarter FTES was 2,334 (7,002/3). In 20032004, the ratio of AYtofall FTES for Los Angeles was .965. Applying this ratio yields an estimated 20042005 AY FTES for Los Angeles of 14,475.0 (.965 x 15,000). Because Los Angeles is a yearround quarter campus, its 20042005 CY FTES estimate is the sum of its AY FTES estimate and the annualized summer quarter FTES: 14,475.0 + 2,334.0 = 16,809. Semester campuses with summer 'terms' will follow the same formula by annualizing the summer FTES (by dividing by 2) and adding this number to the AY FTES estimate.
The Chancellor's Office uses this methodology to review collegeyear estimates that the campus submits. However, it is understood that campuses sometimes need to adjust their enrollment plans significantly when support budgets are reduced substantially, when fees are increased substantially, or when other external factors affect enrollments. When campuses submit collegeyear estimates that depart substantially from the past history, they are asked to provide supplemental information.
CollegeYear, TermbyTerm Enrollments, Estimates, Plans, and Proposals
Tables 19.2 through 19.5 (Headcount Enrollment by Student Level and Enrollment Status) were added to the CY 20032004 College Year Report. These tables parallel those requested in the August and Opening Term Enrollment Planning & Resources EXCEL workbook.
A very simple illustration should suggest the utility of these and other tables to enrollment planning.
Spring Headcounts. In spring 2003, CSU San Francisco enrolled 27,877 students (see Table 1: Total Headcount Enrollment by Term, 20032004 College Year).
Spring and Summer Degree Conferrals. In spring 2003, 3,194 students were awarded their degrees at CSU San Francisco. In summer 2003, another 795 received their degrees. Thus, from the spring 2003 student body, 3,989, or 14.31% received a CSU degree (Note: this is an underestimate of the percentage of completers from the spring 2003 student body, since some students may have completed their education credential programs and been recommended for education credentials after spring and summer terms; especially if postbaccalaureate education credential enrollment is significant, campuses are encouraged to include such termbyterm completion counts in their plans).
In November and January before the supportbudget year, when the campus is developing its implementation plan to provide instruction for the support budget target, the campus would already have an estimate of its spring enrollment. A simple way to get a handle on the number of spring 2004 students likely to continue in fall 2004 is first to project an estimate of spring 2004 students who will complete their programs before fall 2004. A simple assumption for San Francisco would have been that 14.31% of its spring 2004 enrollment would receive the degree before fall 2004. Suppose that San Francisco estimated that its spring 2004 enrollment would be 28,200. Then, this methodology would yield an estimated 24,165 spring 2004 students who would not complete their programs before fall 2004 (28,200  .1431*28,200).
More sophisticated campus planning analyses might be based a completion percentage based on simple or complex projections of undergraduate seniors and master students in the spring. Campuses also may develop tracking mechanisms and databases that monitor monthly applications for degree conferral in order to project total applications for degree conferral and the yield of actual degree conferrals to applications. Especially when a sizable increase in student fees is slated, it is prudent to assume an increase in completions and to monitor ongoing applications for degree conferral as one factor in enrollment planning.
SpringtoFall Continuation. Table 19.3: Headcount by Student Level and Enrollment Status, Fall 2003, 20032004 College Year shows that 20,422 continuing students enrolled in fall 2003.
San Francisco  Lower Division Undergrads  Upper Division Undergrads  Postbacc/Grads  Total 
Continuing  3,555  11,706  5,161  20,422 
Returning  13  113  56  182 
Returning Transfer  19  106  2  127 
Transfer  515  3,034  246  3,795 
Firsttime  2,499    2,287  4,786 
Transitory  222  110  42  374 
Total  6,823  15,069  7,794  29,686 
Recall that there were 27,877 spring 2003 students and 3,989 who received a degree in spring/summer 2003. 27877. Of the remaining 23,888 students enrolled in spring 2003 who did not complete their academic programs, 20,422, or 85.49 percent, continued in the fall (Note: CSU students who last enrolled at the university in fall 2002 also would be listed as "continuing" students in fall 2003, but it is very difficult to project the return of what campuses typically call "regible" students a year in advance, so the above percentage generally is used).
In November 2003 and January 2004, when the campus was developing its implementation plan to provide instruction to its CY 200405 support budget target, after subtracting out anticipated spring and summer 2004 completers from the spring 2004 headcount projection, it would have been reasonable for the campus to assume that 85.49% of the students who enrolled in spring 2004 and not completing programs before fall 2004 would continue in fall 2004. From the illustration above, of the estimated 24,165 spring 2004 students who would not complete their programs before fall 2004, 85.49% is 20,659. Like termtoterm completion rates, termtoterm continuation rates usually are fairly stable. There typically is very little that a campus can do proactively to increase the percentage of student continuing the next term. The percentage can be decreased directly by campus actions, e.g., strengthening and enforcing disenrollment policies. Historically, forces external to the campus have increased termtoterm completion and continuation rates. For example, when fees are slated for increase, CSU students accelerate their progress by continuing more and taking more units; those near graduation frequently leave the campus before fees are increase. One behavior (increased program completion) reduces the number of continuing students the following term; the other behavior (increased continuation) indicates increased retention and sometimes compensates for degree completion.
Returning, New, and Transitory Students. In Table 19.3 above, there are five additional categories (rows) of students. The fall 2003 students who were returning, new, and transitory students are those who applied to the university in advance of fall 2003. Returning (native) and returning transfer students have been away from the university for a period of time, necessitating reapplication as a returning student. Firsttime students include firsttime undergraduate freshmen, firsttime postbaccalaureate students, and firsttime graduate students. Transfer students  primarily undergraduate transfers but also postbaccalaureate and graduate transfer students  represent the fourth category. Finally, transitory students are permitted to enroll at the university on a termbyterm basis. New, returning, and transitory students to the university number 9,264 in fall 2003.
Campuses regularly monitor applications for admission and registration and have simple to very complex systems for estimating applications, admissions, and yield from admissions. Projecting firsttime and transfer students is an essential enrollment management activity. Campuses manage the number of applications that they will accommodate after the opening fall filing period and may decide to receive no additional applications any time after the opening filing period; campuses are not required to open for admission for other terms although most open for winter and spring terms. It usually is most efficient to set application targets with some sense of the date that the target number was reached in the last like term. Returning students are far fewer in number and typically are very difficult to project in advance; as a simple ruleofthumb, campuses typically assume about the same number of returning students as in the previous term or in the previous like term. Finally, transitory students also are few in number. They include a continuing student from another CSU campus visiting for the term or enrolling concurrently and other categories delineated in enrollment management policy and specified for ERS reporting in the Operations Manual under Enrollment Status.
Enrollment Estimates that Support Fee and Revenue Estimates and Financial Aid Budgets
Once CY FTES campus support budget targets are finalized, revisions are made to state university fee revenue estimates and State University Grant (SUG) estimates. Enrollment estimates of regular and limited CY headcounts by student level are used by budget planners to develop fee and financial aid budget estimates. To facilitate and simplify budget planning, the procedure for developing the headcount estimates has been standardized.
To illustrate the standardization, we focus on the 20052006 CY FTES target for a campus. In brief, the CY 20052006 is separated into summer 2005 and AY 20052006 segments using proportions from 20032004 actual CY FTES, which would be the most recent published proportions available normally for support budget purposes. The AY FTES target, then, is parceled into six categories of regular and limited undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and graduate FTES in accord with 20032004 percentages. Then, within each of these six FTES categories, the ratio of FTES to headcount is applied to generate projected regular and limited headcounts by student level. Anticipated mandatory waivers, then, are subtracted. The same process is followed to estimate net summer 2005 regular and limited headcounts by student level.
Following are detailed illustrations of this student fee revenue methodology.
AY and Summer FTES. Suppose CSU Hayward was targeted to serve 12,000 CY FTES in 20052006. In 20032004, Hayward served a total of 12,001.1 annualized FTES, 1,648.9 in Summer 2003 and 10,352.3 in AY 20032004 (see Table 3: Total FullTime Equivalent Students (FTES) by Term, 20032004 College Year). Summer comprised 13.739% of Hayward's college year instruction in 20032004. For the fee revenue calculations, Summer 2005 FTES would be set at 1,649 (13.739% rounded to a whole FTES), and the AY FTES set to the balance, 10,351.
AY Regular and Limited Headcounts by Student Level. Suppose that the CSU San Diego 20052006 AY FTES target was 26,200. To the 20052006 AY FTES target, the percentage of 200304 AY FTES that each category of regular/limited AY FTES by student level represented is applied from Table 29: Regular and Limited AcademicYear FullTime Equivalent Students by Student Level, 200304 Percent of AcademicYear FTES Total in the College Year Report, thus, parceling AY FTES into the six categories. The results of this application are shown in the table below.
Regular  Limited  
Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Total  
200304 AY FTES Percentages 


100.0%  
20052006 AY FTES Estimates & AY FTES Target 


26,200 
The figures in the table above are hypothetical and are shown purely for illustrative purposes.
Note that in parceling FTES into the six categories that whole integers are assigned and the sum of the integer parcels equal the target; if the standard rounding rule does not result in equality, the figure with a remainder closest to .5 should be rounded down to achieve equality. The percentages in Table 29 suffice for distributing integer FTES to students.
Table 31: Ratio of Regular and Limited AcademicYear Enrollment (Headcount) to Regular and Limited AcademicYear FullTime Equivalent Students (FTES), by Student Level, 200304 in the College Year Report provides parameters for estimating the AY regular and limited headcounts by student level.
Continuing with the example above, place the 20052006 AY FTES integers for each of the six categories in the first line of the table below. To these 20052006 targets, apply the ratio of AY headcount to AY FTES to yield an AY headcount estimate for the category. The ratios are shown in line 2 of the table below; the application is multiplication with rounding to integers. The 20052006 AY enrollment (headcount) estimate in this example is 33,346.
Regular  Limited  
Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Total  
20052006 AY FTES Estimates & Target 


26,200  
Ratio of 200304 AY Hdct to 200304 AY FTES 


N/A  
Projected 20052006 AY Headcount 


33,346 
The figures in the table above are hypothetical and are shown purely for illustrative purposes.
For State University Fee revenue projection purposes, the projected 20052006 headcounts are reduced by the number of budgeted State University Fee Waivers, which consists of a previously established base number of waivers, adjusted annually by the annual change in the number of mandatory State University Fee Waivers. Campus reports of mandatory State University Fee waivers for AY 20032004 are found in Table 30.3: Mandatory State University Fee Waivers  Regular and Limited Headcount Enrollment by Student Level, 200304 Academic Year.
Summer Regular and Limited Headcounts by Student Level. Regular and limited headcount estimates by student level for statesupported summer instruction are handled separately, because students historically have evidenced enrollment patterns that differ from the academic year. To complete the San Diego illustration, suppose that the San Diego State's summer 2005 FTES target is set at 4,000 term FTES, or 2,000 annualized FTES. To the summer 2005 target, the percentage of summer 2003 annualized FTES that each category of regular/limited AY FTES by student level represented can be applied from Table 32: Regular and Limited Annualized FullTime Equivalent (FTES) by Student Level  Number and Percent, Summer 2003 in the College Year Report, thus, parceling summer 2005 annualized FTES into the six categories. The results of this application are shown in the table below.
Regular  Limited  
Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Total  
Summer 2003 FTES Percentages 


100.0%  
Summer 2005 Annualized FTES Estimates & Target 


2,000 
The figures in the table above are hypothetical and are shown purely for illustrative purposes.
Please note that in parceling FTES into the six categories that whole integers are assigned and the sum of the integer parcels equal the target; if the standard rounding rule does not result in equality, the figure with a remainder closest to .5 should be rounded down to achieve equality. The percentages in Table 32 suffice for distributing integer FTES to students.
Table 34: Ratio of Regular and Limited Annualized Headcount to Regular and Limited Annualized FullTime Equivalent Students (FTES) by Student Level, Summer 2003 in the College Year Report provides one possible set of parameters for estimating summer 2005 regular and limited headcounts by student level.
Regular  Limited  
Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Undergraduate  Postbaccalaureate  Graduate  Total  
Summer 2005 Annualized FTES Estimates & Target 


2,000  
Ratio of Summer 2003 Annualized Hdct to Summer 2003 Annualized FTES 


N/A  
Projected Summer 2005 Annualized Headcount 


5,353 
The figures in the table above are hypothetical and are shown purely for illustrative purposes.
Continuing with the example above, place the summer 2005 FTES integers for each of the six categories in the first line of the table above. To these summer 2005 FTES target allocations, apply the ratio of summer 2003 annualized headcount to summer 2003 annualized FTES to yield a summer 2005 annualized headcount estimate for each category. The ratios are shown in line 2 of the table above; the application is multiplication with rounding to integers. The summer 2005 annualized enrollment (headcount) estimate in this example is 5,353.
For State University Fee revenue projection purposes, the projected summer 2004 headcounts are reduced by the number of budgeted State University Fee Waivers, which consists of a previously established base number of waivers, adjusted annually by the annual change in the number of mandatory State University Fee Waivers. Campus reports of mandatory State University Fee waivers for summer 2003 are found in Table 33.3: Mandatory State University Fee Waivers (Annualized)  Regular and Limited Headcount Enrollment by Student Level, Summer 2003.
For campuses that did not provide statesupported instruction during summer 2003, the Chancellor's Office will apply the AY methodology to the campus' CY 20052006 overall target. For campuses converting selfsupported summer special session instruction for statesupported matriculated students in summer 2005, the most recent buydown FTES information is assumed for fee purposes.
State University Fee Revenue Estimates. For more information regarding the Budget Office's state university fee estimation processes, please contact Rodney Rideau at 5629514559.
Financial Aid Budget Estimates. Student Academic Support uses a methodology similar to the Budget Office to inform financial aid budget estimates and allocations. For more information regarding this process, please contact Dean Kulju at 5629514737.
Regular and Limited Headcount Estimates. Any questions about the estimation of net AY and summer annualized regular and limited headcounts by student level should be directed to Harold Creech at 5629514762.