California State University, Sacramento USING A POLICY AUDIT TO ALIGN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FINANCE WITH STATE POLICY GOALS Nancy Shulock Making Opportunity

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


Overview

What is a “policy audit”? The California Community College context Findings: using the policy audit

Overview


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


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


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%


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


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


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 - - - -


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


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


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


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


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


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


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?


Contact Information

Email:

[email protected]

Website (to download or order reports):

www.csus.edu/ihe

Documents

California State University, Sacramento USING A POLICY AUDIT TO ALIGN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FINANCE WITH STATE POLICY GOALS Nancy Shulock Making Opportunity