Transcript Document

University of California
Budget Overview
Librarians Association of the University of California
May 13, 2004
Trudis Heinecke
Director, Long Range Resource Planning
Office of the President
General Campus FTE Enrollment:
Actual Enrollment vs. 1999 Plan
225,000
Actual
200,000
Enrollment
175,000
150,000
1999
125,000
Enrollment
Plan
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
64- 65
69- 70
74- 75
79- 80
84- 85
89- 90
94- 95
99- 00
04- 05
09- 10
* Represents a 5,000 FTE increase for 2004- 05 if enrollment growth were fully funded.
2
UC's Share of State General Funds
7%
Percent
6%
5%
3.5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
04-05
03-04
02-03
01-02
00-01
99-00
98-99
96-97
94-95
92-93
90-91
88-89
86-87
84-85
82-83
80-81
78-79
76-77
74-75
72-73
70-71
0%
0%
This display shows how UC’s budget as a share of the State’s General Fund has changed over
time.
UC’s share of State General Funds declined dramatically after Proposition 13 in 1978-79,
regained some ground in the 1980s, but began a steady decline with the cuts of the early
1990s.
That decline was moderated with the first compact under Governor Wilson in 1995-96.
A two-year upturn occurred reflecting the recent surplus at the State level, but the slope has
once again continued a steady decline to its lowest point yet. In 2004-05, the UC share will
have dropped to 3.5% of the State’s budget.
3
UC introduces “block” funding allocations to campuses during the 1990s.
Higher Education Compact with Governor Wilson (1995-96 to 1998-99)
 Provide stability after budget cuts of early 1990s and allow for growth through a
combination of State General Funds and student fee revenue.
• Provided State General Fund increases of 4% annually during the 4-year period and
anticipated student fee increases averaging about 10% per year.
• Legislature and Governor provided funding above compact levels, eliminating the need to
increase student fees, helping to restore faculty salaries to competitive levels, and providing
funds for high-priority research programs and K-14 outreach.
• General obligation bonds/lease revenue bonds provided annually for high priority capital
projects.
Partnership Agreement with Governor Davis (2000-01 to 2003-04)
• Average annual increase of 4% to the prior year’s General Fund base.
• Funding at agreed-upon marginal cost for all enrollment growth (estimated
at 3%/year).
• Additional 1% increase to State General Fund base budget each year to phase correction
of funding shortfalls for libraries, ongoing building maintenance, instructional equipment and
instructional technology.
• One-time funding, contingent on State’s fiscal situation, for high priority needs such as
deferred maintenance, libraries, equipment, instructional technology, and capital.
• Funding for new or expanded initiatives, such as opening of new campuses, special
research initiatives, outreach programs, and transition to year-round operations.
• Revenue equivalent to that which would be generated by annual student fee increases of no
more than the increase in the California per capital personal income.
• $210 million per year, consistent with Proposition 1A, to support capital outlay needs, with
additional support envisioned beginning in 2002-03 through support of another general
obligation bond measure.
• Accountability measures related to student access, eligibility and enrollment levels;
graduation rates; fees and financial aid; outreach programs; and increases in research funding
and private support.
4
Decline in Average Cost of Education and State Subsidy
(1985-86 Dollars)
$10,000
11%
$7,500
7%
82%
13%
25%
25%
9%
9%
79%
10%
$5,000
$2,500
19%
72%
11%
65%
63%
University of California costs are not spiraling out of control. In fact, the
average cost of education has declined by 12% since 1985. Student fees are
higher now because the State General Fund subsidy has declined by 32%,
causing students to pay a higher percentage of the cost of education.
$0
85- 86
90- 91
State General Fund Subsidy
95- 96
00- 01
UC General Funds
03- 04
Student Fees
The average marginal educational cost per student has declined over the past 20 years,
largely due to the deterioration of the student-faculty ratio.
Students are paying a larger share of the cost of their education. The amount of student fee
revenue supporting educational costs has more than doubled since 1985-86.
The share of State funds supporting educational costs has declined dramatically, about a
40% decline between 1985-86 and the proposed 2004-05 budget.
5
Resident Undergraduate Student Fee Levels Compared to Fees in
Constant 1971 Dollars
(Mandatory Systemwide Fees)
$5,500
Actual Fees
$4,500
$3,500
$2,500
$1,500
Constant Dollars
$500
-$500
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
* 2004 increase reflects the Governor's proposed budget.
The history of undergraduate student fees is shown in the top line of the display. The wide
fluctuation in student fees tracks fairly closely with changes in the State’s economy. In good
years, fees were held steady or reduced. In years of fiscal crisis, student fees increased
dramatically. The display also shows that, when adjusted to account for a family’s ability to
pay (using California per capita personal income), fees in 2004-05 (assuming the Governor's
Budget proposed 10% fee increase is implemented) would be only slightly higher than they
were in 1971-72.
Percent of Low-Income Undergraduates
(Pell Grant Recipients)
40%
30%
Selected
Universities
in Other States
20%
California
Research
Universities
10%
0%
U of
Vi rgi ni a
U of
U of
U of North
W i sconsi n Mi chi gan C arol i na
Stanford
C al Te ch
USC
UC San
Di e go
UC
Be rke l e y
UC LA
So urce: US Department o f Educatio n
6
Budgeted Student-Faculty Ratio
General Campus
13
Student-Faculty RatioRatio
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1968-69 1972-73 1976-77 1980-81 1984-85 1988-89 1992-93 1996-97 2000-01 2004-05
Beginning in the mid 1960s, the University’s budgeted student-faculty ratio was 14.5 students to
one faculty. In the early 1970s, it increased to 17.6:1, where it stayed for nearly 20 years. During
the budget cuts of the early 1990s, it rose to 18.6:1.
During the 2003-04 budget process, the Governor’s office proposed to increase the studentfaculty ratio to 19.6:1 ($34.8 million cut). However, UC treated the cut an unallocated reduction
to other programs, so as not to “officially” increase the student-faculty ratio. However, given
limited resources, in reality the ratio has probably increased to between 19.5:1 and 20: 1 this year.
The Governor’s Budget for 2004-05 proposes to further erode the ratio by raising it to 20.7:1,
representing a 10% increase over a two-year period.
UC’s student-faculty ratio already compare unfavorably with our eight comparison institutions,
where the ratio averages 17:1 at the four public comparison institutions and 10.4:1 at the four
private comparison institutions.
7
Faculty Salaries as % of Market
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
1987-88
1990-91
1993-94
1996-97
1999-00
2002-03
2005-06
% Increase/Decrease in State Funding
for Staff Salaries
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
UC Staff Salary Increase Funding
Source: WorldatWork, "Annual Salary Budget Survey".
Market - Western Region
8
The UC budget has grown significantly since the late 1980s….
Total UC Budget
$ in thousands
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
19
86
/8
7
19
88
/8
9
19
90
/9
1
19
92
/9
3
19
94
/9
5
19
96
/9
7
19
98
/9
9
20
00
/0
1
20
02
/0
3
0
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
-0
3
20
02
-0
1
20
00
-9
9
19
98
-9
7
19
96
-9
5
19
94
-9
3
19
92
-9
1
19
90
-8
9
19
88
-8
7
0%
19
86
Inst. Support as % of Expend.
….while Institutional Support has declined in proportion to UC’s total budget.
9
Library Planning and Budgeting
Stand-alone Libraries (1960s and 1970s)
•
Opening day “core collections” for new campuses and intercampus bus services.
Coordination to Support Regional and Systemwide Services (mid 1970s to mid 1990s)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The University of California Libraries—A Plan for Development (1977)
“One University, One Library” concept as a foundational principle
Development of on-line union catalog
State funding of acquisitions based on Voigt-Susskind model, which took into account
enrollments and academic program offerings
Increases in library staffing and operations cost based on approved enrollment
increases.Funding for materials price increases based on actual cost increases for research
library materials and campus acquisition patterns.
State funding for construction of regional libraries, based on specific planned rates of
storage for each campus. Campus deposits to regional libraries became a precondition of
State funding for campus libraries, which were based on standard space planning factors.
Agreements were fully funded during most of the 1980s.
Cooperation to Develop a Shared Digital Collection (1997 to present)
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Library Planning and Action Initiative launched in 1996.
Acquisition strategies for library materials not sustainable over the long term.
Build on collaborative efforts in place and use emerging technology to leverage
systemwide approaches to improving services and containing costs.
Beginning in 1998-99, State funds were provided for the start-up and operation of the
California Digital Library.
Under both the Wilson Compact and the Davis Partnership Agreement, funding for
libraries provided as part funding for approved enrollment increases.
During the three-year period 1998-99 to 2000-01, additional funding was received to
restore earlier budget cuts and fund new initiatives.
10
UC Has Leveraged Technology So That Expensive Library
Materials Can Be Cost-Effectively Shared among Campuses
7,000,000
125,000
5,250,000
Request Service
Begins in Jan. 1999
100,000
75,000
3,500,000
50,000
California Digital
Library Begins
in Jan. 1999
25,000
Use of Digital Journals
Books Lent Between UC Campuses
150,000
1,750,000
dd
-
0
1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03
Note that the level of activity for online access to journal articles is counted in the millions, rather
than the tens of thousands of interlibrary loans.
Library Materials Funding Available for Local and Systemwide Investment, 2002-03
(Percent)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Systemwide CoInvestment
Local Investment
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UCB
UCD
UCI
UCLA
UCR
UCSD
UCSF
UCSB
UCSC
Total
11
Library Budget Issues
UC Library Budget totals $249 million in 2003-04, with $206 million or 83% funded
from UC and State General Funds.
•
•
•
•
Acquisitions-processing represents 55% of the budget.
Reference/circulation represents 39% of the budget.
Systemwide Library Automation unit (MELVYL) represents 2% of the budget.
California Digital Library represents 4% of the budget.
Impact of current budget reductions on libraries.
• In general, most campuses have attempted to protect the collections portion of
the library budget, either by exempting collections budgets from cuts or by
allocating a more limited reduction to this portion of the library budget.
• Library staff positions have been eliminated, resulting in the reduction of
library services and specialty expertise in certain academic program areas.
• Staff reductions have resulted in increased response time to patrons,and
slowdowns in processing materials, retrieving items, and restocking shelves.
• Replacement of computer equipment and upgrading of information systems
have been deferred.
Challenges for funding new library initiatives.
• Will compete with restoration of budget reductions, funding for enrollment
growth, and restoration of competitive salary levels.
• Need to demonstrate effective leveraging of systemwide library resources and
facilities and “efficient” operations.
• Financial support for growth of shared collections will increasingly depend on
funds allocated to the campuses (co-investment strategy).
More information about library budget issues is available on the UC Libraries Web page
"Library News“ at http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/library_budgets.html
12