Future Funding Strategies for the University of California Presented by Peter J. Taylor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Future Funding Strategies for the
Download
1 / 19

  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Future Funding Strategies for the University of California Presented by Peter J. Taylor April 12, 2010. Table of Contents. The Budget Gap Commission on the Future Funding Strategies Workgroup: Develop advocacy campaign for state funding for UC

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Future Funding Strategies for the University of California Presented by Peter J. Taylor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Future funding strategies for the university of california presented by peter j taylor

Future Funding Strategies for the

University of California

Presented by Peter J. Taylor

April 12, 2010


Table of contents

Table of Contents

  • The Budget Gap

  • Commission on the Future

  • Funding Strategies Workgroup:

    • Develop advocacy campaign for state funding for UC

    • Identify, promote, and adopt best practices in admin efficiencies

    • Revise ICR practice & policy for non‐federally funded research

    • Improve ICR rates with federal agencies

    • Develop multi‐year tuition plan

    • Increase nonresident enrollment

    • Advocate for federal Pell PLUS augmentation grants

    • Examine faculty compensation plans

    • Allow for possibility of differential tuition by campus


Future funding strategies for the university of california presented by peter j taylor

Section I: The Budget Gap


The university faces an ongoing budget challenge

The University faces an ongoing budget challenge

$1,223.4

Gap Fillers

$1,223.4

Gap Causes


The state budget is not getting any better

The State budget is not getting any better

  • According to the LAO:

  • There is no way CA can avoid reprioritizing its finances

  • Link between state funding and enrollment has been disrupted

  • Fees projected to continue rising

  • Federal funds provided only a one-time budget solution

Billions…

  • Key choices facing Legislature:

    • How much enrollment should be accommodated?

    • How much should higher-education cost?

    • How should the universities reduce operating costs?

…for at least the next five years


Future funding strategies for the university of california presented by peter j taylor

Section II: Commission on the Future


Reimagining the university

“Reimagining” the University

  • On July 16, 2009, Board of Regents Chairman Russell Gould announced UC Commission on the Future

  • The Commission was charged with developing a new vision for the University within context of UC’s mission and budget, and its commitment to quality, access, and affordability

  • Five workgroups were established:

Funding

Strategies

Education

&

Curriculum

Funding

Strategies

Size & Shape

of UC

Access

&

Affordability

Research

Strategies


Future funding strategies for the university of california presented by peter j taylor

Section III: Funding Strategies Workgroup


Workgroup submitted nine recommendations to the commission on march 23

Funding

Strategies

Workgroup Submitted nine recommendations to the Commission on March 23:

  • Develop grassroots advocacy campaign

  • Implement a best practices system

  • Revise ICR practice/policy for non‐federally funded research

  • Improve ICR rates with federal agencies

  • Develop multi‐year tuition planning framework

  • Increase nonresident enrollment

  • Advocate federal Pell PLUS augmentation grants

  • Examine faculty compensation plans

  • Allow possibility of differential tuition by campus


1 develop grassroots advocacy campaign

#1: Develop grassroots advocacy campaign

  • Rationale:

    • Public institutions must have backing of those who pay taxes to support it

    • Activism is strongest at the local level

    • Political leaders can gain from a relationship with UC

  • Challenges:

    • Development of an adequate campaign infrastructure

    • Development of campaign messaging

    • Doing it the UC Way (not just another political campaign)

    • Internal constituencies need to be educated and “buy in” to the campaign


2 implement a best practices system

#2: Implement a best practices system

  • Rationale:

    • Administrative activity pervades any large organization, and especially complex public research universities

    • Our funding model may be misaligned with our efficiency goals

    • A penny saved is a penny earned

  • Challenges:

    • We must follow through this time

    • There is a time and place for campus autonomy

    • Cost-cutting cannot mean quality-cutting


3 revise icr policy for non federally funded research

#3: Revise ICR policy for non‐federally funded research

  • Rationale:

    • Total cost recovery is our principle

    • Core funds subsidize research

    • Significant revenue potential

  • Challenges:

    • State-funded research (it’s less than half that charged to federal)

    • Understanding among the faculty

    • Differing effects on different disciplines


4 improve icr rates with federal agencies

#4: Improve ICR rates with federal agencies

  • Rationale:

    • Total cost recovery is our principle

    • Successful comparators have a dedicated negotiating team

    • Significant revenue potential

  • Challenges:

    • Multiple funding agencies involved (and huge disparities among them)

    • Understanding among the faculty

    • Tendency towards campus autonomy


5 develop multi year tuition planning framework

#5: Develop multi‐year tuition planning framework

  • Rationale:

    • Creates an integrated planning framework

    • Change misleading nomenclature

    • Simultaneously maintain focus on state funding (and exhibit interconnectedness with the state)

    • Utilize market headroom

    • Increase predictability

  • Challenges:

    • Continue to pursue state funding

    • Enrollment and other impacts

    • Complex implementation

    • Avoid guarantee misunderstanding (and continue to address affordability)

    • Avoid Reg Fee misunderstanding


6 increase nonresident enrollment

#6: Increase nonresident enrollment

  • Rationale:

    • Significant revenue generation

    • Positive impact on the state (and undergraduate experience)

    • Market headroom

    • Success at comparator institutions

  • Challenges:

    • Recruiting infrastructure

    • Revenue potential limited by return-to-aid

    • Perception issues

    • Protecting racial diversity


7 advocate federal pell plus augmentation grants

#7: Advocate federal Pell PLUS augmentation grants

  • Rationale:

    • Preservation of quality

    • Graduation rate component

    • Core operations precedent

    • Combat economic stratification

  • Challenges:

    • Identifying available federal funds

    • Feasibility

    • Avoid a program that is too self-serving (aim for true “Race to the Top” type program for all of higher education)


8 examine faculty compensation plans

#8: Examine faculty compensation plans

  • Rationale:

    • Existing precedent

    • Use of non-core funding

    • More extensive use of contract and grant funds

    • Would augment/replace core funds for instruction

  • Challenges:

    • Equity issues among disciplines

    • Cultural shift

    • Faculty resistance


9 allow possibility of differential tuition by campus

#9: Allow possibility of differential tuition by campus

  • Rationale:

    • Increase revenue capacity

    • Existing cost differentiation

    • Precedent in other states

    • Discounts rather than add-ons

  • Challenges:

    • Perception issues

    • Inclination to move to the maximum

    • Integrate with resource allocation efforts


  • Login