State Higher Education Budgeting Mechanisms in the United States


Book Description

(Purpose) The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between certain characteristics of US states and their budgeting systems for higher education (HE), and to derive implications for Japanese HE budgeting policy from the results. (Methodology) The US's State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) conducted a 30-item questionnaire survey on state higher education budgeting for all 50 states from January to March in 2008 (response rate: 78%). Following general and simple analyses, the following four hypotheses were formed and examined with empirical analyses: (H1) there is a significant correlation between the importance of HE budget in the overall state budget and the adoption of funding formulae; (H2) inflation and fluctuation in enrolment affect whether the funding formula approach or the baseline-incremental approach is selected; (H3) justifications of public financing to the state HE sector are influenced by the cost-sharing status between households and the state government; and (H4) the governors' budget proposal and the legislative passed budget are influenced by certain external factors. (Results) H1 was proved with satisfactory statistical significance. However, H2 showed a result opposite to that originally expected, and H3 could not be proved statistically. These results indicate that the funding formula approach is used more frequently by states which recognize their HE budget as more important comparative to other states and which have experienced greater fluctuations in inflation than the other states over recent years. With regards to H4, the financial burden of households did not affect the justifications selected. Governors' proposals were significantly influenced by the budget volume of primary and secondary education, while legislative passed budgets were largely determined by state unemployment rate. (Conclusions) The results show that funding formulae are in use in more unstable situations and that the decision makers executive and legislative branches do not recognize the importance of the bases of budgeting requests and justifications on the providers' side. (Recommendations) The budgeting system for Japanese national universities is simply dominated by fiscal reform measures, and has much to learn from the strategic decision-making involved in US state HE budgeting systems. (Additional Data) Manuscript contains 16 tables, 13 figures and 35 endnotes.




Budgeting for Higher Education at the State Level


Book Description

State budgeting for higher education is a complex, multifacted process which is influenced by conditions outside both state government and higher education including the historical traditions, political culture, economic and demographic aspects of a state. Noted is the need of higher education to compete with other policy areas for resources and yet retain its autonomous nature. This monograph addresses the following budgeting concerns: environmental factors framing the state budget process for higher education; how these factors affect state budgeting; the primary elements of the state budget process for higher education; how the state higher education budget links resources with state objectives; accountability; costs, productivity, and quality; affordability; economic development; minority and nontraditional students; independent higher education; and the implications of what we know about state-level budgeting for higher education. It is emphasized that all participants, from the state level agency to the department within an institution should be aware of the overall picture of state budgeting for higher education. Includes 190 references. (LPT)




Performance Funding for Higher Education: What Are the Mechanisms? What Are the Impacts?


Book Description

After first appearing in 1979 in Tennessee, performance funding for higher education went on to be adopted by another 26 states. This monograph reviews research on a multitude of states to address these questions: • What impacts does performance funding have on institutional practices and, ultimately, student outcomes? • What obstacles and unintended effects do performance funding encounter? This monograph finds considerable impacts on institutional practices, weak impacts on student outcomes, substantial obstacles, and sizable unintended impacts. Given this, the monograph closes with a discussion of the implications for future research and for public policymaking on performance funding. This is the 2nd issue of the 39th volume of the Jossey-Bass series ASHE Higher Education Report. Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education issue, based on thorough research of pertinent literature and institutional experiences. Topics are identified by a national survey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissioned to write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of each manuscript before publication.







State Budgeting for Higher Education in the United States as Reported for Fiscal Year 2007


Book Description

The Center for National University Finance and Management in Japan requested a study that would investigate the specifics of the higher education budgeting process in each of the states. Recognizing the value such a study would have for its members, the national association of State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) created a survey tailored to fit the needs and interests of the SHEEO community as well as satisfy the requirements of the contract with the Center. The survey was intended to gather the details necessary to provide a greater understanding of the factors that most significantly affect decisions states make regarding their budgets. The survey of budgeting practices focused on fiscal year 2007. While budgeting procedures are generally stable, they have changed and continue to change over time. SHEEO gathered information relative to three key components of the higher education budgeting process: (1) Operating budget request, including components of requested funding and the respective roles of institutions, sectors, systems, and states; (2) Operating budget negotiations, in particular, the respective roles and interests of the governor, executive agencies, and legislature in determining appropriations; and (3) Operating budget allocations, primarily legal constraints, processes, and other factors affecting the allocation of appropriations across institutions. Survey results indicate that higher education budgeting practices are diverse, complex, and dynamic. No two states take exactly the same approach to the budgeting process. Each state aims to meet its own needs. Since no two states have the same needs, each state must develop a process that will best address its needs and goals. These processes are constantly evolving as conditions in the states change. Three appendices are included: (1) State Budgeting Processes Survey Instrument; (2) Catalog of Additional State References; and (3) State Summary. (Contains 2 footnotes, 2 figures and 14 tables.).




Budgets and Financial Management in Higher Education


Book Description

This book will help new administrators (department chairs, directors, deans) understand and become more proficient in their financial management role within the institution. Highly accessible, practitioners will be able to put the book's guidance to immediate use in their work. It is also grounded in the latest knowledge base and filled with examples from across all types of institutions, so that it makes an ideal text for a courses in graduate programs in higher education leadership and administration. Specifically, the book: • provides an understanding of the basics of budgeting and fiscal management in higher education • defines the elements of a budget, the budget cycle, and the steps for creating a budget • suggests ways of avoiding common pitfalls and problems of managing budgets • contains effective strategies for dealing with loss of resources • includes end-of-chapter reflection questions and an expanded glossary of terms Written in plain language this volume provides practical approaches to many complex problems in fiscal management. This new edition of the book contains new information in every chapter reflecting both the most recent developments in higher education and feedback from readers of the earlier edition. The information on the current higher education financial environment has been updated, and the case studies have been revised. Readers will be introduced to Bowen's theory of resources and expenses as an important way to understand budgetary decision making in colleges and universities. Special attention is paid to the use of restricted funds, the budget implications of faculty appointments and the challenges caused by personnel policies for staff. In addition, greater attention is given to development and implementation of repair and replacement programs in auxiliary enterprises. The challenges that arise when budget problems are postponed are also discussed. The volume contains a number of suggestions for practitioners with new budgeting and fiscal responsibilities.




State Budgeting for Higher Education, the Political Economy of the Process


Book Description

Institutes and societies in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, the chemical industry, and the construction industry. Each entry gives address, organization, research prior to 1967, biographical information, noted personnel prior to 1967, and, in some cases, recent research and publications. Index of institutes.




Financing American Higher Education in the Era of Globalization


Book Description

This ambitious book grows out of the realization that a convergence of economic, demographic, and political forces in the early twenty-first century requires a fundamental reexamination of the financing of American higher education. The authors identify and address basic issues and trends that cut across the sectors of higher education, focusing on such questions as how much higher education the country needs for individual opportunity and for economic viability in the future; how responsibility for paying for it is currently allocated; and how financing higher education should be addressed in the future.