Learning Resources

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: 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: 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.

Abstract: The article discusses the challenges that community colleges face in increasing college degree completion in an era of budget reductions and fiscal constraints. The analysis draws on data collected in the 2011 Survey of Access and Finance in which responses were obtained from all 51 members of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC).