Learning Resources

Abstract: Securing financial viability requires an engaged board that is monitoring the right trends and campus indicators, asking the right questions of campus leaders about the institution’s finances, and doing the scenario planning and stress testing necessary to transform a business model under stress.

The governing board’s fiduciary duty to steward the institution’s financial health requires that boards and leaders consider business model transformations, and plan for a range of scenarios like mergers, affiliations, strategic partnerships, and even—when all other options are exhausted—final transformations such as campus closures when continued mission fulfillment is impossible.

This is part two of a two-part webinar series delivered in partnership between SCUP and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), “Higher Education Business Models Under Stress: Planning for Successful Transitions”. This series will help build your fiduciary understanding of your institution’s business model as you prepare the campus for a range of possible business transformations, from mergers, strategic affiliations, corporate partnerships, or even the ultimate scenario of a campus closure. View the recording for part one, “Board Oversight of Finance and the Business Model: Key Indicators and Trends for Scenario Planning and Stress Testing”.

Abstract: In 2013, the article Planning for the Future: The Impact on the Public University Diversity Budget in Time of Recession reported the impact of the 2008 recession on college and university student affairs diversity unit budgets. Colleges are again faced with another economic downturn with looming budget cuts. The purpose of this article is to revisit the idea of whether primarily student affairs diversity units are hit harder than other institutional units in fiscal cuts and the potential effect that current events related to diversity programming initiatives have had on campus planning. The article explores the status of these budgets during fiscal uncertainty and the social awareness around campus-wide diversity, equity, and inclusion and its prioritization.

Abstract: In higher education philanthropy, alumni giving is a tremendously vital aspect, especially for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Throughout the history of alumni giving, though, HBCUs have not enjoyed the same success in soliciting and cultivating donations as Primarily White Institutions (PWIs) have. We compiled literature and conducted snowball sampling of private HBCU alumni to understand the motivations for giving or not to their alma maters.

Abstract: Few studies have investigated how academic deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB), despite its widespread adoption. In this article I explore findings from a study that investigated how deans crafted a confidential annual budget report at an American university. Ultimately, deans adopted one of three approaches to crafting the report: delegating, distributing, or dominating authorship. Deans who distributed authorship collaborated with their senior teams to establish a shared sense of priorities for their colleges. In contrast deans who delegated and dominated authorship ignored and alienated members of their senior team during the budget review, engendering confusion and frustration.

Abstract: This research project investigates whether co-located institutions, specifically, and competing institutions of higher education, more generally, could use the concept of “collaborative planning” to achieve mutual success. Collaborative planning is a conceptual framework from urban planning that emphasizes “partnership,stakeholder involvement, collaboration, and consensus-oriented decision-making” as core principles of planning (Vandenbussche, Edelenbos, and Eshuis 2017). It is an effective tool for transcending competition, negotiating disagreements, and achieving increased institutional collaboration and innovation.

Abstract: Do you call it a “goal,” “objective,” or “priority”? The terms used to describe planning vary from campus to campus. That’s why it’s critical that your college or university creates a shared language around planning that everybody understands. The SCUP Integrated Planning Glossary gives you a place to start. Use our list of common planning terms and our definitions to begin conversations about your institution’s unique planning language. Updated October 2021.

Find this helpful? Creating a common language is one of the many vital points discussed in the SCUP Planning Institute workshop—designed to help you and your team move from goals to implementation together.

Abstract: Due to the rising price of tuition, the prevailing narrative regarding higher education is that the cost of delivering a college degree is increasing substantially. However, the cost of delivering an education is not definitively linked to the price in tuition paid to attend. Prior studies confirmed small increases in instructional expenditures per full-time-equivalent student from the 1980s to 2000; however, more recent trends in instructional costs are relatively unknown. The purpose of this study was to track instructional expenditures from 2004 to 2015 at U.S. public two-year and four-year institutions, and to calculate those expenditures as a proportion of U.S. Gross Domestic Product.

Abstract: Beginning with the 2016–2017 academic year, Rosemont College took the bold step of reducing its tuition by 43 percent in an initiative termed “Our Tuition Promise.” The initial announcement generated national news coverage and resulted in a significant increase in applications.
Rosemont made this shift because it believed it was the right thing to do and was in keeping with the college’s mission and values. The process from start to finish was the result of a year of research and careful planning. While the headlines were big and up-front with the basic details, here is a behind-the-scenes look at how Rosemont College reset its tuition.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.