legislative relations – Andrew Careaga

Uncertain future for America’s public research universities

If past is prologue to the future, then the recent past for America’s public research universities should be a cause for concern.

According to a National Science Board report released this week, the past decade has been a tough one for public research universities in the United States. This is no news flash for most of us in higher ed, especially those of us employed by public research universities. Still, the extent of the decline in state support over the past several years is troubling.

This study of the nation’s 101 major public research universities — those an Associated Press report calls “the pride and backbone of American higher education, doing essential research and educating en masse the next generations of scientists and engineers” — finds that state per-student funding has declined by an average of 20 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars between 2002 and 2010. Ten states experienced declines ranging from 30 to as high as 48 percent.

ResearchUnivs-decline — This AP map shows the state-by-state decline in funding for the U.S.’s top public research universities.

What will happen if the nation’s public research universities continue to wither away? Since the post-Sputnik era, public research universities have become some of the nation’s most important centers of innovation, scientific discovery and economic development.

Yes, public institutions must find a way to become more efficient and control costs. And yes, states aren’t the only source of funding for research universities. Perhaps by necessity, institutions are looking to corporate and business interests for more support for research, but those dollars often come with strings attached. Applied research for companies is often tied to specific corporate interests. Federal dollars, a resource for more exploratory research in the past, have also become more tightly controlled, and a significant chunk of federal funding is expected to go away next January. That’s when some $500 billion in Defense Department funding may evaporate if sequestration takes effect. Those cuts would reverberate across the U.S. — our universities, as well as our military-industrial complex.

A case must be made that public funding that supports public higher education is an investment in our future, not a cost. If not, then the future may look even bleaker for public higher education.

Economic recovery and higher education

If the stimulus package approved by Congress over the weekend is going to work, a good chunk of its success may depend on higher education.

Higher ed figures to play a prominent role in a long-term economic recovery under the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress on Friday and expected to be signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday. In the short term, though, the stimulus will consist of infusions of money and tax breaks for individuals: more relief for the unemployed and uninsured, help for first-time home buyers, modest incentives for car purchasers, and some additional tax credits.

But beyond those measures, the stimulus package includes several items that relies on a stronger, longer-term partnership between colleges and universities and state and federal government. If handled wisely, they could help pave the way toward a transformation of our economy.

Last Friday, Inside Higher Ed‘s Doug Lederman analyzed how the economic stimulus package will affect higher education. It’s mostly good news, but public colleges are more likely to be happier with the end result than private institutions, Lederman points out.

Administrators at public colleges and officials in state higher education agencies were probably relieved that the compromise legislation would deliver a total of $53.6 billion in new aid to states over the next two years. … [T]he compromise figure is far higher than the $39 billion that was in the Senate version of the legislation, and $53.6 billion — $39.6 billion of which is designed to fill gaps left by state budget cuts, and $8.8 billion of which is set to go to governors to use for education and other purposes — should go a significant way toward softening the impact of the economic downturn on state colleges and universities.

University research should also benefit from the legislation, which “allots roughly $16 billion to several federal agencies for research grants and facilities over two years, most of which will eventually flow to academic institutions,” Lederman writes. The lion’s share of those funds will go to the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Department of Energy — three huge funding agencies that, working in partnership with colleges and universities, can help to focus research on areas of national need, like biotech, health and medicine, infrastructure, engineering and science education, and energy and environmental sustainability.

The increase in Pell Grant funding will also help make college more affordable for students, which in turn will lead to a more educated work force and upward mobility.

“If there was bad news in the final stimulus bill,” writes Lederman, “it was probably for officials at private nonprofit institutions.”

Their students will surely benefit from the increased Pell Grants and tax credits, but they had hoped that Congress would increase the limits on unsubsidized loans (as the House had planned to do), and they lost at the last minute nearly $60 million in new capital contributions to the Perkins Loan Program. They were also hardest hit by the Congressional negotiators’ decision to eliminate the separate pot of money ($6 billion in the House bill, $3.5 billion in the Senate) for higher education facilities, which was envisioned to be distributed by the higher education agency in each state.

The compromise stimulus bill wiped out those funds and up to $16 billion for school districts — reportedly in the face of opposition from Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of three Republicans whose votes the White House and Senate Democrats desperately needed in order to pass the legislation, which most GOP members oppose as too heavily tilted toward non-stimulative spending rather than tax cuts.

In the final analysis, much more needs to be done to nurse our economy back to health. The banking and investment system needs an overhaul. The automotive industry needs to be retooled, as do many other sectors of our economy in order to be positioned for a transition into a more environmentally sustainable economy. But education must play a role in these sectors, too. For our colleges and universities must provide the kind of holistic education that will prevent future mismanagement — of money, of talents, and of precious natural resources. We must do our part to ensure that “the smartest guys in the room” of our country’s major institutions are managing their resources wisely and ethically.

Blogging from CASE District VI: big issues on the horizon

One of these days I’m going to attend one of these CASE conferences not as a presenter, moderator, organizer or member of the planning committee, but as a mere attendee. That way, I can devote the time to thoroughly blog about the sessions from more processed notes, rather than from the combination of scribbles on scraps of paper and a faulty short-term memory. Until that day arrives, though, I’ll have to post what I can, when I can, about the sessions I’m involved in as either a speaker, moderator or panelist — as well as those few sessions I can get to as a sponge to soak up knowledge.

But this morning, the first full morning of the CASE District VI Conference in Kansas City, Mo., found me first serving as a panelist on a big-picture session on the “horizon” issues being explored by CASE (more here), then moderating a panel of three bloggers (one of whom was 15 minutes late for the session, which threw me into panic mode, but that’s for another blogpost).

About that horizon session: around 15 folks sat in on the discussion, which was led by CASE President John Lippincott. Lippincott shared five big issues, then asked me and my fellow panelists — John Amato of the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Michael Johnson of the University of Northern Colorado Alumni Association — to comment further on the issues and challenges we see looming.

Lippincott’s top five:

The growing demand for our work as advancement professionals — whether it’s in marketing, fundraising or alumni relations. “As advancement officers, we’re being asked to do more and more,” said Lippincott. The trend toward more capital campaigns, bigger campaigns, the greater competition for dollars and students, the growing demand for our services caused by new communications technologies, etc., means we’ll be keeping busy for a while.
The global nature of work — or “glocalization” — means that “we’re being asked to operate in a global marketplace and still resond to local needs.” As more universities in Europe and elsewhere begin to focus on fundraising, for example, they are recruiting fundraising talent from North America. Lippincott rattled off some four or five universities in the UK that have recently hired US fundraisers to lead their advancement operations.
The erosion of public confidence in education is resulting in an increased emphasis on accountability as well as cynicism toward charitable organizations, increased attention from government.
The impact of technology in our communications and marketing areas — the growing interest in social media such as blogs and wikis. The popularity of sites such as Facebook will influence alumni relations in the future.
The need to embrace marketing on our campuses — not just in advancement, but across all areas. “We have to embrace the ‘M’ word: marketing,” Lippincott said. Quoting Henry Beckwith (author of Selling the Invisible), he said: “Marketing is not a department; it is an institutional commitment.”

Lippincott concluded that these changes in the field of institutional advancement mean a greater emphasis on developing the profession, more use of research to drive our work and measure results, a more strategic role for advancement in leading and managing a campus, and a need to integrate the advancement disciplines to reinforce one another and strengthen the institution. In short, “It means long hours, a long career, and taking the long view. … In these days of short-term presidencies there is a tendency toward short-term thinking. We in advancement are the keepers of the flame.”
And then Amato, Johnson and I all spoke, and the four of us took questions from the audience.

Liveblogging from CASE: Legislative update and forecast

One of this morning’s two sessions had to do with the national legislative outlook. The short answer: fiscal growth in defense and homeland security, not so much elsewhere, but a few glimmers of hope for higher education — even though the federal fiscal year ends in 15 days and elections are less than two months away.

Panelists for today’s session:

David Baime, vice president for government relations, American Association of Community Colleges.
Becky Timmons, director of govenment relations for the American Council of Education.
Matt Owens, assistant director of federal relations, Association of American Universities.

A little bit about the session before I check out of the hotel:

A common agenda

David Baime opened by emphasizing that the U.S.’s “big six” higher education associations (listed below) work jointly to promote a common agenda.

‘Tough fiscal climate’

In terms of the federal budget, it’s a “tough fiscal climate” in D.C., Matt said. Increases in defense funding and homeland security but not much for non-defense discretionary funding (for student aid, federal research, etc.) makes up about 13 percent of the budget, and “that’s what everybody’s fighting over.” David added that fiscal conservatives have homed in on this piece of the budget pie.

In student financial aid, there is one small bright spot, Matt said. One House bill that includes a $100 increase in the Pell Grant need-based student aid. The funding level hasn’t been increased in five years. Even though it’s a small increase, it’s important to fight for it, Becky said.Research funding: The outlook is mixed, Matt said, with good news for large agencies, but “other ones are suffering.” President Bush’s American Competitive Initiative includes proposals that could benefit higher education, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs, and research agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other similar agencies.

In response to a question about promoting education to legislators as a “public good” rather than an “individual benefit,” Becky talked about the Solutions for Our Future program (the subject of an earlier session at this conference). “If we allow higher education to be viewed in those narrow terms, it creates an atmosphere where funding can easily be withdrawn, even in student aid. Because if it is a personal benefit, then you should pay for it.” Initial research by the Solutions program indicated that the public didn’t see education as being a common good but found that people did see public benefits.

“One of the things that is so clear to us is that we’re not doing a good enough job of explaining higher education to the Congress or anyone else,” Becky said. Individual campus solutions to problems related to access, retention, etc., need to be communicated to legislators, who typically perceive colleges and universities as out of touch, “closed entities.” “We need to find a better way of telling our story.” Issues such as tenure and academic freedom “don’t translate well” to legislators, she added.

‘A little bit wonky’

One of the communications challenges higher education policy groups faces has to do with discussing policy in “a sound-bite world,” Becky said. “We’re policy people, a little bit wonky, and our issues are complicated,” she said. “We live in a sound-bite world.”

The “big six”

The six main lobbying associations for higher education are:

The American Council on Education
The American Association of Universities
The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
The American Association of Community Colleges
The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICO)