Learning Resources

Abstract: The complexity of college pricing policies makes it difficult for students and families to understand how much they will have to pay and which colleges will fit their budgets. Colleges and universities should be able to explain their pricing and aid policies and why they have chosen them. Both financial aid and the high returns on a postsecondary education make college more affordable than most people believe. Colleges should take responsibility for clarifying this confusing issue.

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(MCC) has a long history of planning, the integration of planning and budgeting was limited and our planning system was outdated (as in beyond end-of-life outdated).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: The advantages of thoughtful, well-structured strategic planning and decentralized budgeting are numerous. But they bring different and sometimes conflicting perspectives to high-stakes discussions within the institution. By recognizing and preparing for these tensions, the odds increase that their potential benefits will not be eroded or eclipsed by distractions or destructive forces and they can work in harmony to help an institution accomplish its goals in an increasingly challenging environment. The author considers specific tensions and conflicts and draws on the experience of a flagship public university to suggest ways to manage these tensions and reap the benefits of both approaches.

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: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.

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: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.

Abstract: Globalization and improved access to information has opened up opportunities for more personal mobility and worldwide interconnectedness. Annually, millions of students (both domestic and foreign) leave their homes in pursuit of a higher education, and among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, student mobility has grown to over 50 percent in the last decade. A greater influx of students into tertiary institutions suggests a need to provide housing for them, especially for those students coming from outside the region where the university is located, for example, from interstate or overseas. However, amid fluctuating economic conditions and budgetary constraints, universities direct their expenditures toward their core competence of teaching and research leaving the private sector, in the main, to cater to student housing needs. While current economic realities make it logical for universities to move away from providing students with accommodation, studies over the years show the benefits of university provided housing (UPH) both for students and the institution. Against the backdrop of an increasing student population in Australia and reduced access to public funds by universities, this study assesses the current number of bed spaces provided in 30 Australian universities. Findings from the study show a low number of UPH bed spaces; the authors proffer solutions for universities to circumvent their economic realities while providing students with a suitable place to live.

Abstract: Higher education institutions are under pressure to make transformative changes aimed at improving key areas of performance: access, affordability, price, and productivity to name a few. Institutions have responded with budget cuts and efficiency gains with incremental success. Yet paradoxically the very success they have achieved has also impeded the transformative change their stakeholders seek. Many theories exist to support adaptive change in higher education. A single foundational theory of organizational change in industrial enterprises explains the paradox and illustrates how incremental success slows transformative change. Structural contingency theory, introduced by Alfred Chandler in 1962, encapsulates a number of higher education change theories, further grounding practitioners as they assist institutions in adapting to changing conditions and informing their planning efforts. To achieve transformative change requires a model of integrated planning to synthesize unit improvements into institutional change greater than the sum of its parts. This article presents structural contingency theory to explicate the change process and introduces institutional portfolio management as an operational model of integrated planning. It speaks to an audience of practitioners seeking pragmatic solutions to very real and present problems.

Abstract: While college and university administrators tend to be conscious of the need to integrate financial and budgetary considerations into institutional plans, there are other equally important concerns to weave into planning. Real integrated plans proclaim not only what the organization will invest in and improve on but also what it will cease doing. Priority setting, done properly, includes decisions about shutting down non-priority activities, yet most institutional plans in higher education shy away from such considerations. Mindful of the hard choices that must be made in genuinely integrated plans, college and university leaders must be careful to compose planning teams with diverse sets of participants whose ownership of the plan lends overall legitimacy to the process and the plan itself.