View in EDS

Managing Campus Budgets in Trying Times: Did Practices Follow Principles?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Managing Campus Budgets in Trying Times: Did Practices Follow Principles?
Language: English
Authors: Burke, Joseph C., State Univ. of New York, Albany. Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst. of Government.
Availability: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 411 State Street, Albany, NY 12203-1003; Tel: 518-443-5835; Fax: 518-443-5845; e-mail: burkejo@rockinst.org; Web site: http://rockinst.org/higheduc.htm ($10).
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 60
Publication Date: 1998
Intended Audience: Policymakers
Document Type: Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Budgeting, College Administration, Decision Making, Educational Finance, Efficiency, Financial Exigency, Higher Education, Productivity, Public Colleges, Retrenchment, State Universities, Theory Practice Relationship
Geographic Terms: California, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, Wisconsin
Abstract: This study examined how closely 11 accepted principles for managing budgets were followed at 98 public college campuses during the first half of the 1990s, a period of budget problems. The colleges reviewed were in six states: California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. The study found that (1) planning was not inclusive, since faculty and students were underrepresented; (2) few institutions had both long- and short-term budget plans; (3) most campuses relied primarily on selective cuts, although a strong minority allocated cuts across the board; (4) criteria for cuts reflected ease and availability rather than quality or priority; (5) expenditure reductions exceeded revenue increases on most campuses, but tuition and fee increases restricted access in several states; (6) although most institutions favored short-term personnel strategies, a strong minority included layoffs and retrenchments; (7) most campuses acted to raise productivity and performance in administration and management but avoided academic areas; (8) most campuses did not eliminate academic programs to improve quality and efficiency; (9) most campuses limited restructuring of offices and activities to administrative functions; (10) few campuses refocused their missions based on institutional strengths and student demands; and (11) most campuses did protect quality and access in undergraduate education, but a large minority conceded that both had declined. Detailed tables are appended. (DB)
Entry Date: 1999
Accession Number: ED432194
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:This study examined how closely 11 accepted principles for managing budgets were followed at 98 public college campuses during the first half of the 1990s, a period of budget problems. The colleges reviewed were in six states: California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. The study found that (1) planning was not inclusive, since faculty and students were underrepresented; (2) few institutions had both long- and short-term budget plans; (3) most campuses relied primarily on selective cuts, although a strong minority allocated cuts across the board; (4) criteria for cuts reflected ease and availability rather than quality or priority; (5) expenditure reductions exceeded revenue increases on most campuses, but tuition and fee increases restricted access in several states; (6) although most institutions favored short-term personnel strategies, a strong minority included layoffs and retrenchments; (7) most campuses acted to raise productivity and performance in administration and management but avoided academic areas; (8) most campuses did not eliminate academic programs to improve quality and efficiency; (9) most campuses limited restructuring of offices and activities to administrative functions; (10) few campuses refocused their missions based on institutional strengths and student demands; and (11) most campuses did protect quality and access in undergraduate education, but a large minority conceded that both had declined. Detailed tables are appended. (DB)