13952 Denver West Parkway Suite 400 Golden, Colorado

Transcription

1 Issue Backgrounder Denver West Parkway Suite 400 Golden, Colorado Th e Fu n d i n g Crisis in Colorado s Higher Education System IB-2010-D December 2010 By Barry W. Poulson, Senior Fellow In t r o d u c t i o n The state of Colorado faces a funding crisis in higher education. The recession that began in 2007 has taken a brutal toll on the state budget. Because the state (unlike the federal government) must balance the budget, revenue shortfalls have required spending cuts. Higher education has been particularly hard hit. The state has been able to offset some of the spending cuts with federal stimulus dollars targeted to higher education; however, the use of one-time stimulus dollars to fund ongoing programs has created a structural deficit in higher education budgets. General fund revenues are not projected to recover to pre-recession levels for several years. When the federal stimulus money runs out in FY 2011, higher education budgets will face further significant challenges. While higher education resources are scarce, the demand for higher education is increasing. During the recession more people are opting to continue their education, rather than enter the workforce. Also, families that might have chosen private institutions are choosing to send their children to public colleges and universities to save money. Stat e Fu n d i n g f o r Hi g h e r Ed u c at i o n In Colorado State funding for higher education in Colorado, as well as other states, is heavily impacted by the $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 0 business cycle. When the state experiences a recession and revenue shortfalls, higher education spending is often reduced significantly. Higher education spending is viewed as discretionary, while other components of the state budget are mandated by state and federal regulations and court orders. Legislators in Colorado have allowed colleges and universities to increase tuition to offset budget cuts in periods of recession. In periods of growth legislators have provided more generous funding for higher education. As shown below in figure 1, prior to the recession in the early part of this decade, total funding for higher education was relatively stable. From 1991 to 2002 total funding per undergraduate full time equivalent (FTE), including both state appropriations and tuition exceeded $8, This Figure 1 State Appropriations and Tuition Revenue per FTE for Colorado Institutions FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 1991 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 State and Local Net Educational Appropriations Net Tuition and Fees Revenues U.S. Total Source: SHEEOSHEF with adjustments for inflation (HECA), cost of living, and enrollment mix. Source: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, (2008). 1

2 reflected a policy of adjusting tuition levels to reflect state funding. During the recession in the early 90 s when state funding fell, tuition charges increased to offset the funding shortfall. When the economy recovered and state funding to higher education increased, tuition increases were limited so that total funding per FTE remained stable. The recession in the early part of the 2000s brought a sharp revenue shortfall and a sharp decrease in state funding per FTE. Increased tuition charges did not make up for the shortfall in state funding. Total funding per FTE fell below $8,000, which was well below average funding in the nation. During the current recession the state has experienced another sharp revenue shortfall, and revenues are not projected to recover to pre-recession levels for several years. The state has been able to offset part of this revenue shortfall with federal funds. Table 1. Higher Education Expenditures Capital Inclusive ($million) Fiscal Year General Fund Other State Federal Total State Expenditures Report, fall 2009 In fiscal year 2008 the state was able to increase total funding for higher education by increasing both general fund expenditures and federal funds. However, in fiscal year 2009 state funding for higher education fell sharply, only partially offset by increased federal funds. Prior to 2009 higher education expenditures as a share of total state expenditures in Colorado exceeded that in other states; in 2009 the share fell below the national average. Table 2. Higher Education Expenditures as a Share of Total State Expenditures Fiscal Year Colorado All States State Expenditures Report, fall Th e Im pa c t o f Federal Fu n d i n g o n Hi g h e r Ed u c at i o n Ex p e n d i t u r e s in Co lo r a d o Colorado s increased dependence on federal funding for higher education began with the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of That dependence increased dramatically with the federal stimulus money created in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA was designed to stabilize support for public colleges and universities by supplementing state funding for higher education. The state expects to receive $7.1 billion in federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (State of Colorado, 2010). 2 The state is using much of the federal stimulus money to fund ongoing programs. This annualization of one-time money is creating a structural deficit in the state budget. When ARRA funding ends, the total state budget will fall rather dramatically. State economists predict a revenue shortfall of $617 million in FY With growth in Medicaid, K-12 education and higher education, the revenue shortfall could Colorado s increased dependence on federal funding for higher education began with the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of That dependence increased dramatically with the federal stimulus money created in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). be as high as $1 billion in that fiscal year. This means that many programs, including higher education, cannot be sustained at current levels of funding. 3 Colorado has received $621.8 million in federal stimulus money to fund higher education. These funds have been used to supplement state funds allocated to higher 2

3 Table 3. Allocation of ARRA by Institution Institution FY FY FY Adams State College $2,459,127 $7,207,904 $1,413,343 Mesa State College $4,117,215 $11,700,892 $2,387,079 Metropolitan State College of Denver $9,934,344 $24,765,859 $4,665,091 Western State College $2,280,870 $6,196,492 $1,412,354 Colorado State University System $33,271,434 $80,088,438 $19,566,800 Fort Lewis College $3,978,508 $7,752,908 $2,843,580 University of Colorado System $49,995,467 $119,390,747 $35,003,398 Colorado School of Mines $4,443,761 $12,463,207 $2,845,658 University of Northern Colorado $8,909,433 $23,222,224 $5,793,766 Community College System $25,300,005 $69,953,805 $14,959,668 Local District Junior Colleges $3,288,325 $8,414,708 $2,154,256 Area Vocational Schools $2,697,018 $5,351,059 $1,649,106 TOTAL $150,676,055 $376,508,243 $94,694,099 Source: State of Colorado, Governor s Office of State Planning and Budget (2010). education. The following table shows the allocation of these funds by institution. Table 3 shows that the federal stimulus money has supported a significant share of higher education funding over the past couple years. On an annual basis the federal stimulus money has boosted funding 25 percent to about $800 million. When the federal stimulus money disappears in FY , the state will lose $207 million per year in federal funds allocated to higher education. Colorado chose to spend most of the ARRA money in FY 2008 and FY Colorado s dependence on ARRA money is reflected in the changes in higher education expenditures over the past two years. Federal funding for higher education in Colorado increased 38.8 percent in FY 2008, and 55.6 percent in FY As a share of total funding for higher education in Colorado the federal share increased dramatically from 7.5 percent in 2007 to 22.1 percent in No other state has become as dependent as Colorado on federal funding for higher education over this period. Table 4. Annual Percentage Change in Higher Education Expenditures Fiscal Year State Federal All 2007 to to Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditures Report, fall The impact of ARRA money on Colorado higher education funding is captured below in table 5. In the absence of ARRA money, total expenditures for Colorado higher education in FY 2009 would have fallen 11.5 percent. With ARRA money total expenditures for higher education increased 8.7 percent. The percentage point difference in funding for higher education with and without ARRA money in Colorado was 20.2 percent. The average percentage point difference for the nation as a whole was 1.9 percent. Only one other state comes even close to Colorado in dependence on ARRA money in that year: Arizona, at 14.2 percent. 4 3

4 Table 5. Percentage Change in Higher Education Spending With and Without ARRA, Fiscal Year 2009 Without ARRA With ARRA Percentage Point Difference Colorado U.S. Average State Expenditures Report, fall After FY 2011 ARRA money will not be available to fund higher education expenditures. The state is not likely to offset the loss in federal funds with increased general revenues allocated to higher education. State spending is mandated by federal and state law for many programs. Entitlement programs, including Medicaid and welfare, are increasingly circumscribed by federal regulations especially after enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. State spending for K-12 education is mandated by both statutory and constitutional provisions. State spending for transportation and corrections is constrained by both state and federal laws. Over the years less and less of the state budget is Higher education spending is one of the few parts of the state budget where major cuts are possible. subject to discretionary spending by the legislature. In periods of recession and revenue shortfall, the state programs most likely to be cut are those subject to discretionary spending decisions. Higher education spending is one of the few parts of the state budget where major cuts are possible. As a result state funding for higher education tends to be very volatile over the business cycle. This volatility in state spending is not a rational approach to budgeting. However, until the state adopts priority budgeting for all state programs, including higher education, this volatility is likely to continue. Federal Fu n d i n g f o r Hi g h e r Ed u c at i o n as an Un f u n d e d Federal Ma n d at e The termination of ARRA funding will create a huge hole in Colorado higher education budgets in the next fiscal year. But the structural deficit in higher education budgets reflects more than the use of one-time ARRA money for ongoing programs. Federal funding has come with strings attached that have imposed an unfunded mandate on state expenditures for higher education. Included in this federal legislation impacting higher education spending are Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions. Such a provision was included in the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, as well as the ARRA of Especially pernicious was the MOE provision originally incorporated in the 2007 legislation. The penalty for a state failing to meet that maintenance of effort provision would have been loss of the Federal Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) money, funds that go directly to helping low-income students. In other words, the federal government coerced states into funding higher education by threatening to withhold federal funds for the neediest students in higher education. The ARRA provision requires states to provide funding for higher education at not less than 2006 levels. If states fail to meet this MOE provision they risk losing federal stimulus money. In the current fiscal year Governor Ritter has submitted a request for a waiver from this ARRA maintenance of effort requirement. 5 If approved, the Governor proposes to decrease general fund appropriations for higher education by $80 million, and shift $80 million in federal ARRA money from K-12 to higher education. The Governor s waiver request reflects the extent to which dependence on federal funding has shifted control over higher education expenditure from the Colorado General Assembly to the federal government. The unfunded mandates imposed by the federal government on state spending for higher education set a dangerous precedent for several reasons. Not only do the federal The unfunded mandates imposed by the federal government on state spending for higher education set a dangerous precedent for several reasons. mandates dictate minimum levels of state spending for higher education, but they also restrict how the federal money can be used. The federal stimulus money mandates that federal funding for higher education must be used for non-instructional programs. This federal mandate is at odds with state priorities to spend more dollars on classroom instruction. Because Colorado has become 4

5 dependent on federal funding, the federal priorities on how the higher education money is spent take precedence over state priorities. Dependence on federal funding could actually decrease state funding for higher education in the long run. If Colorado citizens perceive that federal priorities take precedence over state priorities, public support for higher education is likely to decrease. Historically, in periods of economic growth the state has been more generous in allocating state funds to higher education. If state legislators perceive that more generous state expenditures could set a higher standard in meeting federal mandates, they may choose to be less generous to higher education in periods of prosperity. En d n o t e s 1 Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, An Evaluation of Colorado s College Opportunity Fund and Related Policies, A Report Prepared for the Colorado Department of Higher Education made possible in part with support from the Donnell-Kay Foundation, July 15, State of Colorado, Governor s Office of State Planning and Budgeting, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, The Colorado Story, June 3, Calm before fiscal storm, Denver Post, June 22, National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditures Report (Fall 2009). 5 Colorado Department of Higher Education, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2010). Finally, federal intrusion in higher education spending decisions is particularly sensitive to Colorado citizens who are increasingly leery of centralized control from Washington. Federal spending for higher education, and the unfunded mandates that accompany these expenditures, fall outside the powers enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government. The 10th Amendment reserves such powers to the states and the people. Many citizens want to reduce or eliminate federal control of higher education and to return those powers to the state and citizens of Colorado. Their goal is to enforce the 10th Amendment to restore state sovereignty and individual freedom. Only in recent years has the state become dependent on federal funding for higher education. Far from stabilizing higher education spending, the federal funding has created a structural deficit in the state budget. Solving this structural deficit will require fundamental reforms in the higher education system (these reforms are explored in a forthcoming Issue Paper by the Independence Institute: Privatization: The Solution to the Funding Crisis in Higher Education). These reforms will enable the state to stabilize higher education funding, and balance the state budget without federal handouts and federal unfunded mandates. 5