Office of Planning and Budgeting

Leadership in the House Appropriations Committee released their 2015-17 operating budget proposal on Friday. The proposal provides $3.48 billion of Near General Fund for higher education, which is 8.9 percent increase over the amount in the Governor’s budget proposal.

On the operating side, the UW would receive $581.328 million across the biennium – $81 million more than we received in 2013-15.

Here are some of the key points from the House operating budget proposal:

  • Tuition freeze for resident undergraduate students over the biennium.
  • $50 million in biennial funding to offset tuition freeze and fund compensation increases.
  • $8 million in FY17 to support Computer Science engineering enrollment.
  • $3 million in FY17 for additional medical residencies in Washington State.
  • $4.68 million transfer from WSU to the UW in both FY16 and FY17 to support the WWAMI program.
  • $1.7 million over the biennium to cover operation and maintenance costs for UW Bothell Discovery Hall.
  • $1 million for an ungulate predation study — $600,000 of which would pass through to another state agency.
  • No funding for Climates Impacts Group, although the Governor’s funding had provided$1 million provided for this purpose.

Overall, the UW fared well in the House operating budget compared to the Governor budget.

On the capital side, the UW would receive $41.156 million in new funding from the State Building Construction Account. This is significantly less than the Governor’s proposed budget of $86.2 million, with less funding for the CSE Expansion ($6.033 million of the $40 million requested) and no funding to support the completion of the phased renovation of Lewis Hall. It does however propose a greater amount of funding for the Burke Museum ($26 million), but is still less than the Burke’s requested $46 million.

The Senate will release its proposed operating and capital budgets in the coming weeks.  For an analysis and summary of the operating and capital budgets, please review the OPB Brief.

 

General Fund-State (GF-S) revenue forecast has been increased by $107 million for the 2013-2015 biennium and by $129 million for 2015-2017.

  • GF-S revenue for the 2013-2015 biennium is now $33.547 billion (9.4% higher than collections in the 2011-13 biennium) and
  • The forecasted GF-S revenue for the 2015-2017 biennium is now $36.449 billion (8.7% higher than collections in the 2013-15 biennium)

Revenue collections through February 10th were $69 M (1.5%) higher than forecasted. Of this amount, $52 M came from Revenue Act Sources (retail sales, business and occupation, public utility and tobacco products taxes).

A few additional highlights from the update:

  • Oil Prices have declined further since November forecast.
  • Sales tax growth is strong and is driven by sales in construction, autos and building materials.
  • Real estate excise tax since November forecast came in $11 M higher than forecasted.
  • Average monthly increase of 7,000 net new jobs in Washington. Seattle area employment is growing much faster than the rest of the state.

Note: Caseload forecast Council will release their report this afternoon at 1.30PM

 

Stay tuned!  We’ll post more information tomorrow.

The Equity Line, among others, highlights how the recent NYT rankings of colleges by enrollment of Pell Grant recipients is a nice gesture, but lacking in many ways. The University of Washington (and most public institutions!) was not evaluated as part of the effort, though one-quarter of its undergraduate population received Pell Grant funding last year.

Equity Line contributor Jose Luis Santos notes that, “…the rankings only capture a tiny number of undergraduates enrolled in four-year colleges who receive Pell Grants (just 1.6 percent!), leaving out more than 4.2 million students. This distorts the picture of low-income enrollment, and it distracts the public and policymakers from the real problems with higher education access and success.”

US News & World Report released its much anticipated set of annual rankings this week; the UW fared better this year. Additional analysis about the UW’s position in US News will be posted to the blog as it becomes available.

With graduation season upon us, the Pew Research Center has created a roundup of “5 Facts About Today’s College Graduates.” The article draws from several national databases and surveys, including the National Center for Education Statistics, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Pew surveys.

1.       Only about 56% of students actually graduate within six years. Students at four-year, private, nonprofits schools have the highest graduation rates (72.9%) while those at public, two-year schools are least likely to complete their degree program (39.9 %) within six years.

2.       Business tops the list of most popular major, again. Since 1980-81, business has been the most common major. In 2011-12, one fifth of Americans earning bachelor’s degrees majored in business.

3.       Many recent graduates have trouble finding full-time jobs that require a college degree. In 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 44 percent of recent graduates were underemployed (i.e., working jobs that did not require a college degree). Of that group, only 36 percent made more than $45,000 per year.

4.       Despite this, college graduates continue to make more than people without degrees. A Pew study of Millennials who worked full-time found that the median salary for college graduates was $45,500, while those with some college made just $30,000 and those with a high school diploma made just $28,000. The gap has continued to widen over the years, as described in our recent post.

5.       Graduates still say that college was worth it. 88 percent of Millennial college graduates believe their degree either has paid off (62 percent) or will pay off in the future (26 percent). Among those with advanced degrees, 96 percent say their education was worth the investment.

To read the full Pew Center article, please click here.

The results of two new surveys released Tuesday reveal some of America’s views on both the future of higher education as well as its role in producing desirable outcomes, particularly career-ready graduates. Under Northeastern University’s sponsorship, FTI Consulting surveyed 263 hiring managers in July as well as 1,000 adult Americans in August.  Here are some of their findings: 

  • Americans continue to see the value in higher education, but are concerned that the system does not adequately prepare graduates for their careers. Respondents ranked “level of education” as the most important factor in determining a job candidate’s success; yet, 62 percent said colleges currently do only a fair to poor job of preparing graduates for the workforce. That said, 79 percent believe their own college education prepared them well.
  • Americans are conflicted about who has the greatest responsibility to train recent graduates for the workplace: employers (36 percent), colleges/universities (29 percent) or the graduates themselves (35 percent). When Americans were asked why U.S. companies are struggling to find good job candidates, the most common response was that companies are not investing enough in training new hires. However, 87 percent of Americans assert that higher education must change in order to maintain an internationally competitive workforce.
  • Americans and business leaders value “soft” skills, like problem-solving and communication, over “hard” industry-specific skills. Most Americans (65 percent) and business leaders (73 percent) believe that, for people on the job market, “being well-rounded with a range of abilities is more important than having industry experience because job-specific skills can be learned at work.”
  • Americans and business leaders agree that experiential learning is highly valuable to students’ careers. Nearly all Americans (89 percent) and business leaders (74 percent) believe that students are more successful in their careers if they have work experience from a field-related internship or job. Both groups agree the most important step the U.S. can take to better prepare colleges students is to broaden the professional work programs available to them.
  • Although most Americans (67 percent) think colleges should adopt new technologies and interactive teaching methods, they have doubts about MOOCs and online degrees. Less than 30 percent of Americans and business leaders believe MOOCs are of the same quality as in-person courses, and only 37 percent of Americans would consider completing a postsecondary degree solely online. However, about half of all respondents believe MOOCs will transform education in the US and that online degrees will be equally accepted by employers within 5 to 7 years.

My take-away from all this, to summarize, is:  Americans and business leaders believe that people on the job market need a college education, some professional work experience, and a well-rounded skill-set and in order to succeed. However, they also believe that colleges, businesses, and the government must play a role in helping students garner those qualifications.

Of the nearly 900 schools that received federal money for research and development (R&D) in FY 2011, the UW ranks first among public institutions and second overall in terms of federal research funding. According to a study by the National Science Foundation (NSF), approximately 20 percent of all federal R&D support went to just 10 universities. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed those universities, Table 1 summarizes their findings.

Johns Hopkins University, a private institution, topped the list with nearly $1.9 billion—more than doubling what any other university received that year. The majority of Johns Hopkins’ federal funding came from the Dept. of Defense and NASA. The university also brought in billions via fundraising efforts.

The UW came in second with almost $950 million in federal R&D funding—the most of any public school. The majority of the UW’s money came from the Dept. of Health and Human Services; however, the University was the top beneficiary of NSF funding, receiving more than $145 million in 2011.

Year after year, the same schools consistently receive the most money, said Ronda Britt, a survey statistician with the NSF. 24/7 Wall St. quotes her as saying, these universities “have big research programs that receive a lot of support year after year, and have a lot of infrastructure that helps them keep the money stable.” This holds true for the UW, which has ranked first among public schools since 1974. Having large endowments was another commonality of the top 10 schools, yet federal funding covered the bulk of R&D expenditures in all cases.

As these universities rely heavily on the federal government to support their research, many are concerned about the sweeping cuts of sequestration. The UW and other universities are preparing for a range of possible impacts. As described in our joint brief, the sequester could reduce the UW’s federal grant and contract support by an estimated $75M to $100M during FY13. The UW community is encouraged to remain cautious and conservative in spending federal awards and in planning for future federal funding.

The National Student Clearinghouse recently released an interactive map that illustrates the experience of students who were first time freshmen in 2006. The map shows six-year graduation rates broken down by institution type, student age, and part-time or full-time status. Washington’s level of college completion was higher than average—Washington’s six-year graduation rate for the 2006 first-time freshman cohort, across all types of institutions, was 66.3 percent, while the national average was 60.6 percent.  Interestingly, full-time students at four-year public institutions in Washington had a much higher six-year graduation rate, at 86.4 percent, compared to 81 percent nationwide. Unfortunately, Washington students who enrolled part-time had completion rates below 19 percent at four-year publics and below 13 percent at two-year schools. Furthermore, non-traditional students (first-time freshmen 25 years old or more) were much less likely to graduate in six years than their younger counterparts.

To learn more, or to see how Washington compares to the rest of the United States, check out the interactive map featured on the Chronicle’s website or read the NSC’s report.

Many of the white papers sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Reimagining Aid Design and Delivery project have focused on modifications to the Pell program and/or student loans and repayment (including the two I summarized previously, found here and here). However, the white paper released on Wednesday by the Center on Postsecondary and Economic Success takes a different approach.  It argues that by making tax-based student aid more beneficial to low and middle-income students, the federal government could save billions of dollars, direct those savings to the Pell program and improve the financial aid system as a whole.

Current tax-based financial aid provides high-income families with much larger tax deductions, since the value of the deductions is linked to a family’s marginal tax rate. As The Chronicle notes, “a $100 tax deduction, for example, is worth early $40 to a high-income household but only $10 to a lower-earning family.”  To remedy this issue and refocus the benefits of aid onto low-income families, the Center proposes increasing the refundable portion of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC). The Center also recommends eliminating nonrefundable tax credits, such as the Lifetime Learning Credit (LLC), since they do not benefit households that pay no income tax (i.e. low-income families).

The table below shows the percent distribution of student aid by type and income category in 2013. As you can see, Pell Grants (in blue) primarily benefit low-income families, whereas tax-based student aid (in purple) does the opposite.  Another interesting table from the Tax Policy Center can be found here.

The paper includes three alternative proposals for making tax-based aid more helpful to low-income students and simultaneously boosting college access and completion.  It also discusses three options for improving performance measures used in student-aid policies.

The Governor’s budget office released the first set of biennial budgets today. The current Governor proposed a “current law” balanced budget, assuming no new revenue, and a budget with new revenue, appropriating $34.1 billion of Near General Fund State per year, for which all of higher education, including financial aid, would receive nearly $3 billion (or 8.7 percent). As a reminder, Governor Gregoire’s budget proposals are the first of many budgets to be released for the upcoming biennium. The earliest point that the UW will have a sense of its actual anticipated state funding level is late April 2013. In addition, we might see Governor-elect Inslee release his own budget, or a set of budget priorities, in January 2013.

Under Governor Gregoire’s balanced and new law budgets, each of the state’s six baccalaureate institutions would receive slight increases in funding when compared to carry-forward budgets levels, with no new tuition increases or state funding reductions. While the UW has another year of tuition setting authority under HB 1795, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, this budget does not provide any new financial aid funds to cover tuition increases.  Note that Education Legacy Trust funding, from which the UW normally received at least $8 million annually, was removed from all public baccalaureate institutions’ budgets and replaced with general fund appropriations.

The 2012 Legislature appropriated $209 million in state funds to the UW for FY13, thus, both of the Governor’s proposed budgets represent an increase in the UW’s state funding for FY14 and FY15. However, the budget bill devotes these increases to covering expenses associated with the UW’s collective bargaining agreements.  If any funds remain afterward, they will be available for any other purpose(s).

Please review our budget brief on the Governor’s operating budgets and capital budgets. As usual, let us know if you have any questions.

 

Next Page →