Learning Resources

Abstract: This article evaluates administrative bloat, the ballooning growth of administrative functions and personnel, in American higher education. This evaluation was undertaken through a review of the available literature describing administrative bloat. Though unintentional, increased spending and government requirements for accountability may have contributed to overall growth and cost in higher education. Similarly, the changing composition of faculty—in terms of tenure-track faculty, annual contracts, and adjunct faculty—may have also played a role in the increased influence that administration has over campus policy and curricular decisions. Strategies to mitigate the cost of administrative bloat and to balance campus decisions between faculty and administration are suggested.

Abstract: Institutions are managing numerous student success initiatives simultaneously, but they lack the necessary data and infrastructure to evaluate outcomes. They also struggle to clearly link a particular initiative to a specific individual outcome. Using prediction-based propensity score matching (PPSM), a methodology compliant with the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse’s requirements, we facilitated the analysis of key initiatives to measure efficacy, ensuring that outcomes of students participating are compared to control students with similar propensity. The recent work explored in this article helps two institutions understand the impact of their innovation and more precisely scale student support.

Abstract: Using ordered response models often employed in public finance, we explore the possible determinants of public college and university credit ratings based on the fiscal structure of a number of institutions that are members of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). We argue that by understanding the role of fiscal structure in the determination of institutional credit ratings, leaders can respond appropriately to variable economic conditions. They can also begin to manage and plan the ways in which their operations and fiscal structure impact their debt costs through credit ratings.

Abstract: In an era of heightened accreditation expectations, declining resources, and increasing competition, tools such as integrated planning and budgeting, evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) processes, an overarching continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework, and up-to-date technology solutions for managing planning processes are no longer optional. While Mesa Community College (MCC) has a long history of planning, the integration of planning and budgeting was limited and our planning system was outdated (as in beyond end-of-life outdated). Additionally, planning and budgeting processes lacked EBDM practices and an overarching CQI framework. MCC’s Strategic Planning Committee set about remedying all of these issues and did so within the span of a year.

Abstract: This article provides an overview of the process for the design of a new institutional chart of accounts. It includes some background as to the nature and purpose of a chart of accounts and also speaks to the details of the design process. Implications for data security and usability through design are highlighted, and practical tips on the process to ensure inclusion are featured.

Abstract: A budget model shapes the way a campus operates in a fundamental way. Redesigning a campus budget model could actually happen relatively quickly from a technical standpoint. However, extensive engagement, collaboration, and conversation are key to a successful implementation. In this article, the authors chart the budget model redesign process at UC Riverside, which followed a uniquely grassroots approach. Changing the budget model at UC Riverside was about changing mind-sets, incentives, and behaviors—not just about the numbers. UC Riverside’s phased approach to its redesign process may be instructive to other higher education institutions considering undertaking such a major change initiative.

Abstract: College and university credit ratings directly affect institutional budgeting and planning. Hence, they should be of special concern to those charged with institutional planning. This article underscores the critical role that the ratings issued by two major rating agencies play in institutional finances and planning. Because rating agencies take into account a broad range of criteria, credit ratings remain a robust indicator of creditworthiness and can serve as signaling devices regarding institutional market positioning. Therefore, decision makers should be aware of the importance of ratings as they seek to compete for students and resources in the short run and plan for the long term.

Abstract: Looking for tools to help make your next planning or campus project easier? SCUP’s Resource & Budget Planning Advisory Group generated practical analyses of and insights toward tools and processes that can help you today and with projects to come. Integrated Resource and Budget Planning at Colleges and Universities is the culmination of several years of discussions, face-to-face roundtables, conference calls, and virtual meetings. There is a bit of opinion and some original research, but this publication is mostly very practical descriptions, analysis, and insights into tools and processes. We hope you find it to be informative, interesting, and useful. Each chapter will give you a tool that was crafted by experienced, on-campus peer-practitioners.

Abstract: The capital renewal and replacement of the nation’s public higher education facilities has been a growing problem for several decades. While the need for new and improved facilities has increased over the years, many campuses simply have too many aging infrastructures that are too costly to replace. This, at a time when we have less than favorable economic conditions, only adds to the situation. As the age, size, and complexity of buildings continue to grow, so too does the amount of maintenance funding required to keep buildings in good working order. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the 50 states’ efforts of funding public higher education capital needs. This study investigated areas relating to capital needs financing, planning, decision-making processes used in each state, available funding, and future directions in the various states. Of the 50 states, 41 states responded, representing 82 percent of the 50 states.