Learning Resources

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: 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: 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.