View
214
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
California State University, Sacramento
USING A POLICY AUDIT TO ALIGN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FINANCE
WITH STATE POLICY GOALS
Nancy Shulock
Making Opportunity Affordable (MOA) Academy
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
June 3, 2008
California State University, Sacramento
Overview
What is a “policy audit”? The California Community College context Findings: using the policy audit
Overview
California State University, Sacramento
Policy Audit
Purpose: Show the impact of policies on behaviors/goals Are we buying the right thing? (de facto priorities)
Premise: Policies provide the “rules of the game” – whether
or not explicit and intentional Policies develop incrementally - different players Collective impact rarely considered Finance policy is especially powerful
California State University, Sacramento
Context: California Community Colleges
Largest of three public systems Over 70% of public undergraduates Most part-time 109 colleges in 72 districts Mix of state and local governance Local control but highly regulated
Low funding/lowest fees in the nation High participation, low success 46th among states in completion State lacks explicit goals for higher education
California State University, Sacramento
520,407 Students
Policies toPromote Access
314,034 Students
206,373 Students
Policy Barriers to Completion
Incoming CCC Students
1999-2000
238,352 Students
75,682 Students
Non-Degree-Seekers: 40%
Degree-Seekers: 60%
Job Skills: 49%
Basic Skills: 9%
Personal Enrichment: 42%Complete
Certificate, Degree or Transfer within 6 Years: 24%
Do Not Complete within 6 Years: 76%
California State University, Sacramento
Policy Audit Methodology
Define “finance policy” broadly Base appropriations Categorical programs Laws and regulations on college use of funds Fee policy Student aid policy
Derive goals Analyze policies with respect to goals
California State University, Sacramento
Policy Goals
1. Increase college readiness
2. Provide broad access – credential-seeking
3. Ensure affordability
4. Increase degree/certificate completion
5. Align degree/certificate production with workforce needs
6. Ensure efficient use of funds
California State University, Sacramento
Readiness Access Affordability Completion Workforce Efficiency
Proposition 98 - - - - - Apportionments - +/- - - - Growth - +/- - - - Categoricals: Matriculation - +/- - - - EOPS + + + + - DSPS + - - PT Faculty +/- - - Fin Aid Admin + + - +/- Expenditure restrictions: 50% instruction - +/- - - - 75% / 25% - +/- - - 60% part time - - - - 2 semester temporary - - - - Student employment - - - Fees: Lack of policy - - - Low fees +/- +/- - - - Waivers + +/- - - - Revenue offset - - - - No fee non-credit + +/- + +/- + - Prohibit fees - - - - Financial Aid: BOG waivers - +/- + - +/- - Cal Grant +/- +/- +/- + +/- +/- No integration - - - -
California State University, Sacramento
Key Finding: Policies Undermine Priorities
Favor access over success Focus on fairness to institutions (not
students) Yield insufficient resources for missions Inefficient use of resources
California State University, Sacramento
Base Appropriations (Enrollment-Driven)
Readiness - Disincentive to stress readiness because it could reduce FTES
Access +/- Incentive to increase enrollment but not to focus on credentials.
Completion - No incentive for course completion; incentive to allow late registration and to minimize prerequisites
Workforce - Disincentive to meet workforce needs in high-cost and new fields
Efficiency - Fear of enrollment drop fuels resistance to fees; results in high subsidy for non-needy students
California State University, Sacramento
Restrictions on Spending: 50% Law
Readiness - Discourages time spent by faculty and staff on K-12 alignment and readiness
Access - Limits spending on functions supportive of access (outreach, financial aid administration, orientation)
Completion - Discourages investment in support services that are critical to persistence and success
Workforce - Disincentive for faculty to participate in curriculum development crucial for workforce education
Efficiency - Imposes artificial constraints on use of resources
California State University, Sacramento
Policy of Low Fees for All Students
Access +/- Promotes high participation but by many who do not seek credential; limits access by limiting revenues
Affordability +/- Keeps one part of costs down, but has minor impact on affordability
Completion - Discourages successful enrollment
choices; deprives state of powerful tool to influence student success
Efficiency - Fails to target public dollars to needy
students; subsidizes students who
would willingly pay a higher fee
California State University, Sacramento
Financial Aid Focus on Fees, Instead of Affordability
Access - Impedes access because students do not maximize available financial aid
Affordability - Students get too little aid for major costs of college
Completion - Leaving aid unused leads to too many work hours and lower completion
Efficiency - State funds used for costs that the federal government would cover
California State University, Sacramento
Some Finance Policy Reform Priorities
Appropriations Incentives for progress/success Incentives for high-need programs
Categoricals Reduce programs and lessen requirements
Restrictions on use of funds Modify 50% and increase flexibility
Fees Greater college access to fee revenue
Financial aid Enriched funding for Pell recipients Add academic progress incentive to fee waiver
California State University, Sacramento
What Do We Do Now?The Challenge of Using the Policy Audit
Key Messages to Stakeholders: Policy matters! It’s not just about the money Incentives are powerful – people are rational, not evil
Strategies: Identify better policies (Invest in Success, pp.50-52) Consider levels of policy: institution/system/state The grand bargain: reform and more $$ Piecemeal or omnibus?
Recommended