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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED432194
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED432194
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Managing Campus Budgets in Trying Times: Did Practices Follow Principles?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+Joseph+C%2E%22">Burke, Joseph C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22State+Univ%2E+of+New+York%2C+Albany%2E+Nelson+A%2E+Rockefeller+Inst%2E+of+Government%2E%22">State Univ. of New York, Albany. Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst. of Government.</searchLink>
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: 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).
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 60
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1998
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Policymakers
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Budgeting%22">Budgeting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Administration%22">College Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Efficiency%22">Efficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Exigency%22">Financial Exigency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Retrenchment%22">Retrenchment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Universities%22">State Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theory+Practice+Relationship%22">Theory Practice Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Massachusetts%22">Massachusetts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York%22">New York</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Wisconsin%22">Wisconsin</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1999
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED432194
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED432194
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 60
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Budgeting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Finance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Efficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Exigency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Retrenchment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Theory Practice Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Massachusetts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Wisconsin
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Managing Campus Budgets in Trying Times: Did Practices Follow Principles?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: State Univ. of New York, Albany. Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst. of Government.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burke, Joseph C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1998
ResultId 1