Public Policy is the magazine of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), a frequent collaborator with SCUP.

In Holistic, Positive Retrenchment, Kenneth W. Dobbins, president of Southeast Missouri State University distills some academic program review observations onto a single-page PDF document. He begins:

Most of us are faced with, or will be facing, the daunting task of balancing our budgets with less funding from state government. There are several ways to increase revenue and reduce costs, which seem to be easier than reducing or eliminating academic programs. Examples of these “easier” approaches include: increasing capacity with larger classes; eliminating low enrollment classes; increasing teaching loads; redesigning courses; and adding more temporary or adjunct faculty instead of tenure track. However, the advice in the old saying, “do more or the same with less,” cannot be followed anymore.

With the easier approaches already taken, many of us must critically examine academic programs and ask what are we doing, how are we doing it, and should we be doing it at all. How you do this magic act depends on your campus culture and shared governance expectations, but below are several ideas for your consideration.

Don't miss out on joining nearly 1,500 of your colleagues and peers at higher education's premier planning event of 2010, SCUP–45. The Society for College and University Planning's 45th annual, international conference and idea marketplace is July 10–14 in Minneapolis!

Here's your SCUP Link to "How Campuses Are Changing Procurement for Cost Containment: A Major Study"

This is the kind of resource planners need in order to be on top of the changing environment. The report, from AASCU and NAEP, is based on a survey of chief procurement offices at US institutions. On this Web page, the news release, an executive summary, and the full report can be downloaded.

From the joint press release:

“At a time when federal and state lawmakers are calling on higher education leaders to do more with less, attention must also be paid to the role that state regulatory reform can play in reducing costs and improving efficiency,” says AASCU President Muriel A. Howard.

“Such reform in the multibillion-dollar higher education procurement enterprise offers great opportunity for individual campuses and university systems to streamline purchasing operations to save time and money, and to increase product and service quality. But most importantly, it would enable the redirecting of critical resources toward universities’ core missions of teaching and learning,” she says.

The survey reveals that although U.S. public colleges and universities frequently use technologies that facilitate smart purchase expenditures, further improvements can be realized through the use of additional e-procurement tools that can help institutions better assess, control and leverage procurement expenditures. The study also notes that institutions authorized by state policy to participate in cooperative purchasing arrangements are making broad use of such compacts.

“This study affirms that, while institutions are making gains in boosting cost savings and productivity in their procurement operations, much more can be done, in partnership with states, to streamline the procurement process,” said Doreen Murner, CEO of NAEP. “The purchasing function on college campuses can often go unnoticed. Yet this study illustrates its pervasiveness and underscores the opportunity for reform, while maintaining accountability for taxpayer-provided appropriations and students’ tuition dollars.” 

Don't miss out on joining nearly 1,500 of your colleagues and peers at higher education's premier planning event of 2010, SCUP–45. The Society for College and University Planning's 45th annual, international conference and idea marketplace is July 10–14 in Minneapolis!

Here's your SCUP Link on 'Maintenance of Effort' Funding an Issue for Feds and States

What to do when the federal government gives money for higher ed to a state, but then the state turns around and uses that for stopgap, or to underwrite programs in some way that allows the sate to diminish its future funding? 

An emerging policy solution to counter states’ funding cuts to their public higher education systems is the inclusion of “maintenance of effort” (MOE) provisions in federal legislation. These provisions stipulate that the federal government will offer states a financial incentive in exchange for their “maintenance” of a prescribed level of funding “effort.” This reflects a changing dynamic in higher education finance, given that the federal government has not traditionally been involved in efforts to make college affordable, aside from funding federal student aid programs. The use of MOE provisions to protect state appropriations to higher education also establishes federal expectations of states similar to those formed in 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); this has proven effective in preventing many states from supplanting state funding commitments to elementary and secondary education.