The Choices Report: University Committee on Planning and Budget, University of California (original) (raw)
Related papers
California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2015
After three decades of state disinvestment and "doing more with less," the University of California (UC) is attempting to forge a new funding model that no longer includes substantial funding by taxpayers and support by politicians in Sacramento. The pattern of disinvestment began well before the Great Recession, but accelerated significantly with the dramatic downturn in the economy. Through this period, UC enrolled more and more Californians without any additional funding from the state. Once the bulwark of funding for public higher education in California, the state has become an important yet minor and unreliable partner, often altering an initial commitment with budget cuts in midyear. More importantly, reduced funding has essentially severed the historic link between state funding and enrollment workload, ending the incentive and ability for UC to expand academic programs and enrollment to keep pace with California's growing population and its labor needs-an important component of its historic social contract. If there is any one theme that describes California's history, it has been constant population growth. "To grow or not to grow," is now a major challenge facing the University of California. With a high level of institutional autonomy guaranteed in the state constitution, the university community has the ability to make choices regarding who and how many it enrolls. 2 Without an adequate new funding model UC may now seek to maintain the quality of its academic programs and no longer or only modestly increase enrollment. 3 "UC reaches long-term agreement with governor for more funding, tuition predictability," University of California Office of the President, Press Release, May 14, 2015: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-press-release-governors-revised-budget. 4 Ibid. 5 Many aspects of this budget deal will have long-term implications for UC. It was struck under time constraints between Governor Brown and President Napolitano, causing consternation among some UC campus leaders. Consensus building in universities, particularly one as large at UC, is always difficult, with always a significant number of detractors when dealing with resource decisions; yet, there are indicators that campus academic leaders are often not provided opportunities to consider and discuss key aspects of the budget deal and their implications.
Approaching a Tipping Point? A History and Prospectus of Funding for the University of California
Approaching a Tipping Point? A History and Prospectus of Funding for the University of California, 2018
2018 marks the University of California’s (UC) 150th anniversary. In part to reflect on that history, the report provides a history of the University of California’s revenue sources and expenditures. The purpose is to provide the University’s academic community, state policymakers, and Californians with a greater understanding of the University’s financial history, focusing in particular on the essential role of public funding. Peering into the future, this study also provides a historically informed prospectus on the budget options available to UC. Individual campuses, such as Berkeley and UCLA, may be able to generate other income sources to maintain their quality and reputation. But there is no clear funding model or pathway for the system to grow with the needs of the people of California. UC may be approaching a tipping point in which it will need to decide whether to continue to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or limit enrollment and program growth to focus on quality and productivity.
Exploring Funding Options for the University of California
2018
Despite massive cuts in state funding over the past thirty years, the University of California has managed to keep enrollment on pace with growth in population. With California's population projected to grow 22.5 percent (from 40 to 49 million by 2040), that will no longer be the case, unless UC is able to find a new funding model. Informed by the historical analysis in the report Approaching a Tipping Point: A History and Prospectus of Funding for the University of California, this essay revisits the options for funding UC from that report, including: reinvestment by California lawmakers and a proposed general bond measure for capital construction; increasing research funding to help subsidize teaching and public service programs; revising the indirect-cost agreement with the State of California; raising undergraduate tuition and fees for upper income students and establishing tuition pricing model tiered by student family income; explore differential fees by major; and reducing the percentage of UC undergraduate tuition income that is "returned-to-aid" in favor of increased fundraising for financial aid. All relate to two central questions: a) can UC afford to grow in its enrollment and academic programs with the state's population and needs? and b) how to identify new sources of revenue and pursue management efficiencies to reduce operating and capital costs? Without a substantial boost in income from the state or other sources, UC may be approaching a crossroads, where it continues to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or where it instead chooses to halt or limit growth to focus on maintaining quality and productivity, but with serious consequences for California. Any significant state reinvestment will depend on the new California governor. Governors in the past have been key players in creating and building California's pioneering higher education system. A new governor should have ambitions for higher education that match those of Californians.
Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2018
Despite massive cuts in state funding over the past thirty years, the University of California has managed to keep enrollment on pace with growth in population. With California's population projected to grow 22.5 percent (from 40 to 49 million by 2040), that will no longer be the case, unless UC is able to find a new funding model. Informed by the historical analysis in the report Approaching a Tipping Point: A History and Prospectus of Funding for the University of California, this essay revisits the options for funding UC from that report, including: reinvestment by California lawmakers and a proposed general bond measure for capital construction; increasing research funding to help subsidize teaching and public service programs; revising the indirect-cost agreement with the State of California; raising undergraduate tuition and fees for upper income students and establishing tuition pricing model tiered by student family income; explore differential fees by major; and reducing the percentage of UC undergraduate tuition income that is "returned-to-aid" in favor of increased fundraising for financial aid. All relate to two central questions: a) can UC afford to grow in its enrollment and academic programs with the state's population and needs? and b) how to identify new sources of revenue and pursue management efficiencies to reduce operating and capital costs? Without a substantial boost in income from the state or other sources, UC may be approaching a crossroads, where it continues to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or where it instead chooses to halt or limit growth to focus on maintaining quality and productivity, but with serious consequences for California. Any significant state reinvestment will depend on the new California governor. Governors in the past have been key players in creating and building California's pioneering higher education system. A new governor should have ambitions for higher education that match those of Californians.
The Role of Universities in Economic Competitiveness in California
Center for Studies in Higher Eduation - UC Berkeley
2018 marks the University of California’s (UC) 150th anniversary. In part to reflect on that history, he following report provides a history of the University of California’s revenue sources and expenditures. The purpose is to provide the University’s academic community, state policymakers, and Californians with a greater understanding of the University’s financial history, focusing in particular on the essential role of public funding. Peering into the future, this study also provides a historically informed prospectus on the budget options available to UC. Individual campuses, such as Berkeley and UCLA, may be able to generate other income sources to maintain their quality and reputation. But there is no clear funding model or pathway for the system to grow with the needs of the people of California. UC may be approaching a tipping point in which it will need to decide whether to continue to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or limit enrollment and program growth to focus on quality and productivity.
Breaking the Social Contract: The Fiscal Crisis in California Higher Education
PsycEXTRA Dataset
in Higher Education, which was established by the Council for Aid to Education, an independent subsidiary of RAND. The results of the study, which focused on the fiscal health of colleges and universities nationwide, were recently published in Breaking the Social Contract: The Fiscal Crisis in Higher Education. On behalf of the RAND research staff, we wish to thank the members of the California Education Round Table for the broad experience and sound judgment they brought to our task. We are also grateful to the Technical Advisory Committee, whose members made important contributions to our analysis, often traveling the length of the state to help shape the direction of the study, listen to briefings of interim results, and comment on early versions of this report. We also thank our RAND colleagues Emmett Keeler and Kevin McCarthy for their thoughtful and substantive suggestions. The findings and recommendations presented here are, nevertheless, ours, and should not be seen as representing the views of our sponsors or of RAND.
Federal Support for Higher Education: Budget Alternatives and Implications
1972
10 9 nation's 2,340 institutions were either "headed for trouble" or already "in financial 9 difficulty. " Cheit's projections, too, showed that cost growth probably will outstrip income growth by an annual margin of several percentage points, meaning that schools must find even more new money, make even greater expenditure cuts, or do both. "Crisis" in Perspective There can be no doubt of the widespread, serious, and immediate financial difficulties among our colleges and universities. Whether there is a general, long-10 run financial crisis, however, has been questioned by some observers. Their contention is that the current "crisis" is more a composit of quite different kinds of financial difficulties plaguing different kinds of institutions, ammenable to different remedies, and carrying quite different long-run implications. Research universities for example, are suffering heavily from cutbacks in federal research grants and graduate student fellowships, exacerbated by over-commitments to expensive tenured faculty made during the period of rapidly increasing federal 9 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, press release, December 3, 1970.
2002
presidents and System heads from seven western States around a common table to address their shared challenges in leading public higher education.The Roundtable was held on July 15, 2002 in San Diego, California. Plainly stated, the Roundtable's premise was that inadequate financial support from the State is a permanent condition we must adjust to, not a temporary situation to endure. At the same time, the responsibility to educate and prepare students, generate knowledge and innovation, and address major policy issues on behalf of the State is in no way shrinking; and competition from for-profit institutions has brought new market forces into play. Given the challenges, presidents and chancellors find themselves thinking, "There must be a better way. There must be something we can do differently." Participants were asked to speak openly and candidly about what needs to change and what they would like to try, if given the opportunity. Many ideas arose in the course of the free-flowing discussion. Some can be implemented immediately; others would need to be phased in. Some are being done at other institutions so there are models to look at; others are at the cutting edge and would require further discussion and study. Participants also articulated the characteristics necessaryin governance, finance, and leadershipif American public higher education is to fulfill its historical mission and uphold its worldwide premier status. In a very real sense, these characteristics are operating principles that must be established and practiced if the ideas shared at the Roundtable are to be implemented and succeed.