We have seen a considerable flurry of recent reports indicating some serious cutbacks in higher education budgets in some states. According to a new SHEEO/CSEP report that is being released today, states are spending $79B on higher ed in 2011, down only .7% from last year. But those cuts are not evenly spread. Texas, California, and Arizona, for example, are imposing more severe cuts. This is a summary from Inside Higher Ed's Scott Jaschik, who was able to peruse an early copy of the report. Here is a report from The Chronicle of Higher Education's Eric Kelderman. From Jaschik:

Notably, however, there were six states where the percentage losses were in double digits: Missouri (down 13.5 percent); Delaware (12.4 percent); Iowa (12.2 percent); Minnesota (11.7 percent); Arizona (11.6 percent) and Oregon (10.8 percent). Only one state reported a double-digit increase: Wyoming (up 24.7 percent).

While states use different financial procedures to support higher education, the Illinois State-SHEEO study is considered the definitive source on state appropriations, with consistent rules for what is counted (state funds for operating support and student aid) and what's not (funds for building projects and tuition revenue). Federal research grants (a significant budget line for research universities) aren't counted, but the federal stimulus "stabilization" funds -- which were intended to support the operations of public schools and colleges -- are included because they support the same purposes as general state appropriations for higher ed.

If community colleges were to find all the formerly enrolled students whose academic records qualify them for an associate degree and retroactively award them the credential, then the number of associate degrees awarded in the United States would increase by at least 12 percent.

That's what David Molz writes in Inside Higher Ed, reporting on the Lumina-funded Project Win-Win. Project Win-Win is seeking out the low-hanging fruit which can boost states' goals of increasing the graduation rates. The project is supporting 35 institutions in sorting out awarded credits, complicated student records, and identifying students who actually do have enough credits to graduate, but who for some reason have not been awarded a degree. They're also identifying students ho are very close to a degree, and contacting them about opportunities to finish it.

Note that Predictive Analytics: Building a Crystal Ball for Student Success is a SCUP September 29 webcast which will focus on many ways that better, real-time data analytics will play a role in the country's completion agenda. More details about that will be available on SCUP's website soon.

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 "A Review of System-Wide Reporting at the University of Hawai'i" (PDF)

Hans Peter L'Orange, who is presenting on State Level Data to Inform Decision Makers at SCUP-45, is SHEEO Vice President for Research and Information Resources. This report is his analysis and suggestions, from earlier this year, for how the University of Hawai'i can "to rethink the operation...and plan for an integrated data systemthat is, integrating fiscal, human resource, and student data": Essentially, how it can restructure institutional research, system-wide.

The current situation finds the University at a decision point: will the Systemwide reporting function become increasingly distributed and fragmented or will a formal, centralized strategy be developed? Indications from UH executives imply a shared interest in a stronger, centralized reporting culture. If so, a collective and collaborative process is necessary to develop basic reporting principles where everyone knows who does what, how it is done, and when it is required. This is a leadership decision rather than a technical choice. It’s an opportunity to develop a comprehensive strategy for the future and move from a “data dump” (i.e. MAPS) culture into a decisionculture based on analysis. It is a process of moving from data management to knowledge management. This not to imply that data management is no longer important; if anything, it becomes even more critical as data resources are used to develop information and ultimately knowledge. Without structured processes for managing data, high quality, decisionsupport information cannot be provided to decisionmakers.