Skip to content
Blog

Tag: state funding

New Report Suggests State Budget Woes Will Continue

Posted on

A new study from the State Budget Crisis Task Force concludes that in many states, anticipated revenues will be insufficient to cover mounting Medicaid enrollment caseloads, underfunded pension commitments, and local government budget obligations. The authors focused their investigation on California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia. They predicted that anticipated revenues (from sales, income, or other taxes) would be both insufficient to cover expenses and fairly instable, as personal income remains volatile and unemployment (and underemployment) high. In other words, we are edging towards the state budget precipice, even as the national economy distances itself from the official end of the Great Recession proclaimed in 2009.

These conclusions are not unfamiliar to readers; we recently blogged about state-level fiscal uncertainty and sluggish revenue growth. However, this study sheds additional light on the subject, being the first to make a comprehensive assessment of the tension between mounting expenses and shaky revenues in highly populated states.

While Washington State continues to experience slow economic growth in some sectors and in its generation of tax revenue, the Economic Revenue and Forecast Council (ERFC), in its July collections report, refrained from making any firm economic revenue projections due to the excessive variability of receipts. The ERFC report also emphasized slowing job growth: while reducing state unemployment by 0.5 percent would require 160,000 new jobs each month, the state only added 80,000 new jobs in June.

While anticipated revenue is increasing slightly, the downside risks of a second recession brought on by the debt crisis in Europe, disappointing job growth, and depressed consumer confidence are significant. Despite these concerns, ERFC predicts slight revenue increases for both the 2011-13 and 2013-15 biennia, due to legislative action from the 2012 supplemental budget.

 

Research Universities and the Future of America: New NRC Report

Posted on

In 2009, the National Research Council received a request from Congress for a “report that examines the health and competitiveness of America’s research universities vis-à-vis their counterparts elsewhere in the world”.

Responding to the request, the NRC assembled a 22-member panel of university and business leaders and mandated them to identify the “top ten actions that Congress, the federal government, state governments, research universities, and others could take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and security in the global community of the 21st century”.

The panel released its final report last week under the title Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security. The following were the strongest themes:

  • State and federal governments must increase their investment in research universities, allow these institutions more autonomy and agility, and reduce their regulatory burden: The panel identified the state and federal governments as the key actors in the strategy it proposed; indeed, seven of its ten recommendations were primarily aimed at them. In one of its more ambitious statements, the panel recommended that states should strive to restore and maintain per-student funding for higher education to the mean level for the 15-year period 1987-2002, adjusted for inflation. In Washington, this translates into recommending a per-FTE funding increase of between 70% and 80%. The panel acknowledged that this could be difficult to implement in the near term given current state budget challenges and shifting state priorities, but nevertheless stressed that “any loss of world-class quality for America’s public research institutions seriously damages national prosperity, security, and quality of life.”

  • Strengthen the role of business and industry in the research partnership: The panel recommended that tax incentives be put in place to encourage businesses to invest in partnerships with universities both to produce new research and to define new graduate degree programs. It also encouraged business leaders and philanthropists to help increase the participation and success of women and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

  • Research universities should strive to increase their cost-effectiveness and productivity: The panel recommended that universities should “strive to contain the cost escalation of all ongoing activities […] to the inflation rate or lower through improved efficiency and productivity”. However, it made no mention of the difficulties raised in the previous NRC report on productivity concerning the impact of cost-reduction measures on quality.

The panel’s recommendations are not novel: they have already been made by multiple parties in the higher education sector over the last few years. However, given the weight of the signatures on the report, this document may prove useful in raising the profile of higher education in upcoming budget battles both at the state and federal level.

News Flash! Report Confirms Dismal Reductions in State Support for WA Higher Ed

Posted on

The latest State Higher Education Executive Officer (SHEEO) State Higher Education Finance Report (SHEF) confirms that the Great Recession accelerated public four-year institutions’ reliance on tuition revenue as state funding declined. Released annually, this report is helpful because it summarizes state appropriations and net tuition revenue for the prior fiscal year well before the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Set (IPEDS) is available.

The SHEF report provides net tuition revenue, state appropriations and calculates these revenue streams on a per student FTE basis, combining student FTE from all sectors into one state-wide denominator. According to the report, Washington has experienced some of the most significant higher education state funding reductions in the country, particularly over the last five years, at the same time as student enrollment is growing. Table 5 measures educational appropriations by state and shows that Washington’s educational appropriations per FTE decreased 21.2 percent in FY11. Across all states, Washington was one of twelve states that cut higher education funding per FTE over 20 percent, including Utah (20%), South Carolina (32%), and Michigan (24%).

When FY11 state appropriations are combined with net tuition revenue to calculate a total net loss of revenue per FTE, Washington again falls to the bottom quartile of the rankings. However, it is important to note that this calculation includes community colleges, which collect far lower amounts of tuition. Washington’s large community college population significantly lowers the total tuition revenue collected per student FTE and makes it difficult to accurately compare the result to states with a very different mix of types of students.

It is clear that Washington’s public institutions (including the large community and technical college sector and all six public baccalaureates) have experienced significant state funding cuts in recent years and have not raised tuition as much as institutions in many other states. As a result, Washington’s total educational funding shift has been more dire than most when  compared to the national average, but the dubious distinction of having the deepest and worst state funding cuts to all of higher education in the last year, much less the last 25 years, belongs to Vermont and New Hampshire.