Learning Resources

Abstract: Public-private partnerships—in which public and private sector entities partner to deliver a service or facility for the use of the general public—are spreading in the United States and elsewhere as cash-strapped public entities seek investment funds from private sources. However, it is important not to let immediate challenges and opportunities cause one to lose sight of long-term obligations. In this article, we underscore the importance of taking the long view and share lessons learned regarding finance, planning, and negotiation at institutions that have employed the P3 process. We also offer additional best practices regarding campus master planning to ensure a successful P3 process while maintaining the long-term integrity of the campus.

Abstract: “Designing Innovative Campuses For Tomorrow’s Students” explores increasing investment by higher education institutions in new programs and facilities that boost on-campus innovation and entrepreneurship. This trend is a response, in part, to the changing expectations and demands of Millennial and Generation Z students and their future employers. The impact of this movement, though, goes far beyond those constituencies—changing everything from campus housing to the economic development role of higher education institutions. The examples of Clemson University’s Watt Family Innovation Center and the University of Florida’s Infinity Hall are provided to illustrate the scope of influence and success of these changes.

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: 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.

Abstract: The process of devising a financial strategy to enhance its academic distinction began at Rutgers, a large, public, research university, in 1980 with a not uncommon statement of the Rutgers Board of Governors that sounded like many other mission statements. It used the expected phrases: continue development as a national and international resource by improving quality of instruction, research, and service; increase emphasis on scholarship; expand graduate and research areas of excellence; enhance programs to serve society's needs for broadly educated, humane, competent professionals to serve New Jersey's needs in education, business and industry, public policy studies, government, and other areas. But the Rutgers board did not see the statement as a platitudinous expression to be said and forgotten, and called upon the University administration to implement the statement with all due speed. What follows is the story of its implementation and the results of that action.

Abstract: There are good reasons—educational, economic, sociological—for educational institutions to coexist on the same site or even in the same building with governmental, residential, or commercial functions. At the same time there are roadblocks to such joint-occupancy arrangements, particularly for public institutions, in the laws governing the financing of public buildings and in bureaucratic inertia. This article is a profile of one institution—the new Inner Harbor campus of the Community College of Baltimore—that tried to share its facilities with commercial interests—and failed.