Budgeting for Higher Education: Fundamental Issues and the United States Experience

Transcription

1 Budgeting for Higher Education: Fundamental Issues and the United States Experience Paul E. Lingenfelter and Hans P. L Orange State Higher Education Executive Officers October

2 Overview of U.S. Higher Education Large over 4,200 institutions and 17,000,000 students Diverse Institution Types Public and private research institutions Public and private other four-year institutions Public, private, and proprietary two-year institutions State Differences Enrollment totals in different states Distribution of institutional types 2

3 Statistical Overview of U.S. Higher Education Institutions FTE Enrollment Expenditures ($ in billions) Degrees Awarded Number Four-Year Public 639 6,837,605 $ ,347,129 Private 1,940 4,161,815 $ ,221 Two Year Public 1,036 6,184,229 $ ,904 Private ,826 $ ,268 Total 4,253 17,487,475 $ ,850,522 Instructional Revenues in Public Institutions Net tuition 26.2% 31.4% 32.9% 32.0% State and local support 73.8% 68.6% 67.1% 68.1% Postsecondary enrollment rate of recent high school graduates % 54% 65% 66% Bachelor's degree attainment by race year olds, 2005 White Black Hispanic 35% 19% 12% 3

4 60% Enrollment in Public Community Colleges as a Percent of Fall 2004 Headcount by State 58% Six Largest States 50% 40% 36% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: IPEDS 4 California Washington Wyoming New Mexico Texas Illinois Mississippi North Carolina Oregon Arizona New Jersey Kansas Hawaii Maryland South Carolina Iowa U.S. Virginia Wisconsin Michigan Kentucky Nebraska Arkansas Florida Georgia Minnesota Oklahoma Alabama Ohio Colorado Delaware Tennessee Connecticut New York Missouri Louisiana Rhode Island Massachusetts Indiana North Dakota New Hampshire Maine Pennsylvania Montana Utah Idaho West Virginia Nevada Vermont South Dakota Alaska DC

5 100% 95% Enrollment in Private Institutions as a Percent of Fall 2004 Headcount by State Six Largest States 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 4% 0% DC Massachusetts Rhode Island New York Pennsylvania New Hampshire Missouri Vermont Connecticut Arizona Iowa Minnesota Illinois Tennessee Maine Ohio Utah Indiana Florida U.S. Hawaii Delaware South Dakota Nebraska Georgia Colorado Idaho New Jersey Wisconsin Michigan Virginia Maryland North Carolina Kentucky South Carolina Oregon California Louisiana West Virginia Washington Oklahoma Texas North Dakota Alabama Kansas Arkansas Montana Mississippi Nevada New Mexico Wyoming Alaska 5 Source: IPEDS

6 Federal Role in Higher Education Student grants and guaranteed loans Research competitive and directed ( earmarks ) Grant programs on national priorities workforce development, etc. Growing interest in consumer information, regulation and agenda setting 6

7 State Role in Higher Education Public institutional ownership (governance and direct financial support) Research, economic development, public service Workforce development investment complicated by migration Student assistance grants (varies widely among the states) Academic program authorization Private institution licensing and regulation (very light) 7

8 Voluntary Sector s Roles in Higher Accreditation Education Private giving to institutions and student assistance grants Privately sponsored commercial and general research 8

9 Overlapping State and Federal Roles in U.S. Higher Education Research and student financial assistance: Federal role dominant, states secondary/reactive Over $30 billion annually in R&D support and $68 billion in aid Data collection and reporting: Federal collects core data, states supplement. System is cumbersome, ineffective needs redesigning Accreditation: Voluntary, peer systems, federal/state recognition Institutional priorities, control, management: States dominant, federal lacks legal power and tools, other 9 than blunt reporting/regulation

10 Governance of Public Institutions: State Coordinating Board Planning, budgeting, and program authorization/review Minimal role in personnel and institutional operations (a function of governing boards for individual institutions in these states) May operate state financial aid and grant programs May or may not be closely controlled by the governor (Executive Branch) Vary considerably in influence and power 10

11 Governance of Public Institutions: State Governance Board Make personnel decisions, institutional operations, and corporate governance Plan and budget Are not controlled directly by the governor (Executive Branch) Vary in the allocation of powers between the Board s CEO and institutional CEOs in the system 11

12 Selection of Coordinating or Governing Boards Appointed by governors (most common) Elected directly by the people (less common) 12

13 Coordinating Board Governing Board Both Coordinating & Governing Board No Statewide Board 13

14 Shared Goals and Common Concerns in U.S. Higher Education Student success and economic development Accountability and actual outcomes Finance challenges Appropriations Tuition Financial aid 14

15 U.S. Higher Education Budgeting Process This varies from state to state, but generally: Development of budget request Request sent to legislative and executive branches for review Executive branch (governor) proposes a budget Legislature must accept or override governor s action Governor may subtract from or veto parts of legislative budget Legislature enacts its preferred budget 15

16 Budgeting Objectives Adequate funding to achieve educational goals Stable funding Fair distribution of funds Flexibility to respond to changing needs and priorities Incentives that match priorities and values Responsiveness Effective, efficient decision-making 16

17 Budgeting Issues Adequacy Differences in cost by level of instruction and discipline. Average costs, fixed costs, marginal costs. Funds to cover inflation, keep salaries competitive, maintain facilities, and meet new priorities. Budget incentives to improve performance and quality Equity 17

18 Budgeting Process Many stakeholders play a role Government Institutional leaders Faculty Students Civic leaders Budgeting a process of negotiation No approach to budgeting approach eliminates conflict, guarantees adequate support, or takes negotiation out of the budget process Budgeting by automatic pilot is impossible 18

19 Government Many priorities, limited funds, must manage competing demands Strong interest in cost-effectiveness Strong interest in accountability for outcomes May demand compliance with governmental procedures and policies 19

20 Institutional Leaders Must advocate the interests of faculty and students Highest priority is to maximize funding Highly value flexibility Must manage competing demands within the institution 20

21 Faculty Seek maximum amount of freedom in research and teaching Seek highest possible salaries, best possible working conditions and facilities 21

22 Students Lowest possible costs Highest possible quality Freedom and flexibility 22

23 Civic Leaders Seek well-qualified graduates in fields where they are needed Are concerned about quality and costeffectiveness Will be engaged intermittently 23

24 Base Plus/Minus Approach to Budgeting The starting point is the existing budget, the base. Changes to the base budget are justified by Changes in costs (inflation) or salaries Changes in workload (enrollments, buildings maintained, etc.) Changes in program priorities Judgments about quality and cost-effectiveness Desire for improvement or expansion 24

25 Formula Approach to Budgeting The starting point is a measure of workload or demand for resources normally enrollment sometimes number of faculty, square feet of space occupied, etc. An amount of money is specified for each unit of resource demand; may be based on peers Sometimes (not always) the elements of the formula are adjusted for inflation Sometimes funds are allocated for performance priorities 25

26 Formula Budgeting: Advantages Very sensitive to workload changes Tends to avoid inequities in funding Seems to be more objective Can be or seem to be automatic, requiring few decisions 26

27 Formula Budgeting: Disadvantages Tends to be inflexible Tends to become quite complex Despite the intention, formula budgeting does not solve the problem of defining resource adequacy. Automatic features tend to be overridden when circumstances require different decisions. 27

28 Base Plus/Minus: Advantages All decisions are explicit, and the budget is easy to understand. The budget process is more flexible. If supported with good financial analysis, different priorities and considerations can easily be introduced, including those provided by formula budgeting. 28

29 Base Plus/Minus: Disadvantages May not respond to changes in workload, leading to inequitable distribution of funds Requires continuous decision-making and budget analysis to respond to changing priorities and needs Decision-makers and decisions are exposed. Sometimes less visibility and accountability are preferred. 29

30 Similarities and Differences of the Two Approaches Base plus/minus explicitly works on the margin, formula budgeting seeks to consider the entire enterprise and specify the budget it requires. Base plus/minus budgeting gives the base implicit legitimacy. Formula budgeting draws legitimacy from the formula elements. But both the base and the formula can be and are commonly challenged. Both base plus/minus and formula budgeting can (and usually do) consider workload changes, but workload changes may be more easily ignored in base plus/minus budgeting. 30

31 U.S. Budgeting Practices Survey Results Survey of state higher education budgeting processes 39 states responded 78% response rate 31

32 Approaches to Developing Operating Budget Request N % Funding formula (used to calculate needs, justify changes, etc.) 3 8% Base plus/minus (adjustments to current spending/appropriations based on cost, salary increases, enrollment changes, etc.) 19 49% Mixed, but mostly funding formula 8 21% Mixed, but primarily base plus/minus 9 23% Total % 32

33 Important Factors in Developing Budget Requests Formula funding: Funding for enrollment Funding for different levels of instruction Base Plus/Minus: General salary increases Special or new programs Operations and maintenance 33

34 Other Factors States Reported (Funding Formula) Virginia set national peers for each public institution for competitive faculty salaries. The state has the goal that the average faculty salary at each institution shall be at the 60th percentile of its peers. Funding for O&M of new facilities was a separate item until this session (2008 session) which linked it to enrollment represented by the guideline-driven base operation funding calculation. (Virginia) 34

35 Other Factors States Reported (Base Plus/Minus) In the absence of a formula or performance incentives, inflationary and energy costs are often cited as justification for base increases. (Delaware) Special initiatives such as tuition control, enrollment increases, workforce development, and funding to Historically Black Institutions (HBIs). (Maryland) 35

36 Illinois Instructional Cost by Level (Cost per Credit Hour, Total Instruction) Lower Division Upper Division Graduate I Graduate II

37 Illinois Total Program Costs (Dollars per Credit Hour) Agricultural Economics $ Architecture $ Communication Students $ Computer Science $ Elementary Education and Teaching $ Secondary Education and Teaching $ Chemical Engineering $ Nuclear Engineering $ Foreign Languages and Literactures, General $ Slavic Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, General $ French Language and Literature $ Classics and Laguages, Literatures, and Linguistics, General $

38 Top Priorities in Justifying a Budget Request 1. Increasing need-based financial aid 2. External state priorities (economic development, high-need employment areas) 3. Internal higher education priorities (salary competitiveness) 4. Maintaining tuition levels 38

39 Definition of Key Terms Executive Budget: The Budget proposed by the governor for the entire state Legislative Appropriations: Spending authority approved by the legislature Final Appropriations: Final authority to spend, reflecting both legislative and gubernatorial approval 39

40 Executive Budget Compared to Request Lower Same Higher Funding for Enrollment Funding for Different Levels of Instruction Inflationary Cost Increases General Salary Increases Statewide Collective Bargaining agreement Operations and Maintenance Strategies to improve productivity Special/new proposals for program enhancement or quality improvement

41 Legislative Appropriations Compared to Request Lower Same Higher Funding for Enrollment Funding for Different Levels of Instruction Inflationary Cost Increases General Salary Increases Statewide Collective Bargaining agreement Operations and Maintenance Strategies to improve productivity Special/new proposals for program enhancement or quality improvement

42 State Clarification (Funding Formula) Virginia institutions can make their individual budget requests through lobbying. The result can be they get either requested amount, lesser funding, or no funding. (Virginia) 42

43 State Clarification The Governor funded technology and innovation initiatives but not inflation and the legislature funded inflation and technology but no innovation initiatives. (Maine) 43

44 Top Priorities for Governor and Legislature in Budgeting 1. External state priorities 2. Increasing need-based aid 3. Internal higher education priorities 4. Maintaining tuition levels 5. Performance measures or metrics 44

45 Additional Priorities Reported (Funding Formula) Competing demands for funding were given priority such as pre-k - 12 education. (Arkansas) The governor and legislature funded the highly successful "Bucks for Brains" strategic endowment initiative to recruit and fund endowed faculty professorships and research positions with privately matched public funds. (Kentucky) 45

46 Additional Priorities Reported (Base Plus/Minus) Primary justification was to move institutions towards previous "high water" appropriation levels - from FY Secondary justification was closing the gap within the state on per FTE funding. (Missouri) Desire to restore years of funding cuts. The goal of increasing the % of residents with 4 year degrees requires an increased investment. (Oregon) 46

47 Overview of Institutional Budgeting Separate funds for separate purposes Revenues: Tuition and fees State and local appropriations Federal contracts and grants Endowments Auxiliary enterprises, sales, and services 47

48 Overview of Institutional Budgeting Expenditures: Instruction Research Public service Academic support Student services others 48

49 Budgeting and Financial Planning: Multiple Practices Systemic and ad hoc analysis of the past budget period Continuous oversight of current period s budget Short-term expense and revenue projections; developing the next budget Updating long-range plans 49

50 Budgeting and Financial Planning at Institutions Decentralized organization and financial arrangement of institutions Each unit expected to have some level of self-support Decisions made by those most involved 50

51 Cross-Subsidization at Institutions Some courses bring in more tuition or revenue than others Other courses cost more than others Courses that bring in more revenue help to pay for those courses that cost more 51

52 Research Productivity and Incentive Funding Provides additional revenue Encourages creativity and quality of research Increases federal funding Meets state needs Results in some commercialization 52

53 Timing of Funding at Institutions Recurring funding Permanently allocated portion of state funds One time, non-recurring funding For example, temporary salary savings allocated to new initiatives 53

54 Capital Budgeting at Institutions Separate expenditure area Support institution s physical plan and equipment inventory Outside normal budgeting practice Sources Capital fundraising campaign Donations Targeted state funds Bonds 54

55 Auxiliary Funding at Institutions Residence halls Recreation centers Bookstores Athletics Considered separately in budgeting process Generally self-supporting 55

56 Allocating Resources Identifying goals and priorities Analysis of current capacities, needs, and distribution of resources Determining what allocations will advance progress toward goals and priorities Negotiation is unavoidable 56

57 Thank you for your attention Questions and Reactions? Paul Hans 57