University of California Budget Overview

1
University of CaliforniaBudget Overview

• Librarians Association of the University of
  California
• May 13, 2004

2
(No Transcript)
3
This display shows how UCs budget as a share of
the States General Fund has changed over
time. UCs share of State General Funds declined
dramatically after Proposition 13 in 1978-79,
regained some ground in the 1980s, but began a
steady decline with the cuts of the early
1990s. That decline was moderated with the first
compact under Governor Wilson in 1995-96. A
two-year upturn occurred reflecting the recent
surplus at the State level, but the slope has
once again continued a steady decline to its
lowest point yet. In 2004-05, the UC share will
have dropped to 3.5 of the States budget.
4

• UC introduces block funding allocations to
  campuses during the 1990s.
•  
• Higher Education Compact with Governor Wilson
  (1995-96 to 1998-99)
•  
• Provide stability after budget cuts of early
  1990s and allow for growth through a combination
  of State General Funds and student fee revenue.
•  
• Provided State General Fund increases of 4
  annually during the 4-year period and anticipated
  student fee increases averaging about 10 per
  year.
•  
• Legislature and Governor provided funding
  above compact levels, eliminating the need to
  increase student fees, helping to restore faculty
  salaries to competitive levels, and providing
  funds for high-priority research programs and
  K-14 outreach.
•  
• General obligation bonds/lease revenue bonds
  provided annually for high priority capital
  projects.
•  
• Partnership Agreement with Governor Davis
  (2000-01 to 2003-04)
•  
• Average annual increase of 4 to the prior
  years General Fund base.
•  
• Funding at agreed-upon marginal cost for all
  enrollment growth (estimated
• at 3/year).
•  

5
The average marginal educational cost per student
has declined over the past 20 years, largely due
to the deterioration of the student-faculty
ratio. Students are paying a larger share of the
cost of their education. The amount of student
fee revenue supporting educational costs has more
than doubled since 1985-86. The share of State
funds supporting educational costs has declined
dramatically, about a 40 decline between 1985-86
and the proposed 2004-05 budget.
6
The history of undergraduate student fees is
shown in the top line of the display. The wide
fluctuation in student fees tracks fairly closely
with changes in the States economy. In good
years, fees were held steady or reduced. In
years of fiscal crisis, student fees increased
dramatically. The display also shows that, when
adjusted to account for a familys ability to pay
(using California per capita personal income),
fees in 2004-05 (assuming the Governor's Budget
proposed 10 fee increase is implemented) would
be only slightly higher than they were in
1971-72.
   
7
Beginning in the mid 1960s, the Universitys
budgeted student-faculty ratio was 14.5 students
to one faculty. In the early 1970s, it increased
to 17.61, where it stayed for nearly 20 years.
During the budget cuts of the early 1990s, it
rose to 18.61. During the 2003-04 budget
process, the Governors office proposed to
increase the student-faculty ratio to 19.61
(34.8 million cut). However, UC treated the cut
an unallocated reduction to other programs, so as
not to officially increase the student-faculty
ratio. However, given limited resources, in
reality the ratio has probably increased to
between 19.51 and 20 1 this year. The
Governors Budget for 2004-05 proposes to further
erode the ratio by raising it to 20.71,
representing a 10 increase over a two-year
period. UCs student-faculty ratio already
compare unfavorably with our eight comparison
institutions, where the ratio averages 171 at
the four public comparison institutions and
10.41 at the four private comparison
institutions.
8
(No Transcript)
9
The UC budget has grown significantly since the
late 1980s.
Total UC Budget in thousands
.while Institutional Support has declined in
proportion to UCs total budget.
10

• Library Planning and Budgeting
• Stand-alone Libraries (1960s and 1970s)
• Opening day core collections for new campuses
  and intercampus bus services.
• Coordination to Support Regional and Systemwide
  Services (mid 1970s to mid 1990s)
• The University of California LibrariesA Plan for
  Development (1977)
• One University, One Library concept as a
  foundational principle
• Development of on-line union catalog
• State funding of acquisitions based on
  Voigt-Susskind model, which took into account
  enrollments and academic program offerings
• Increases in library staffing and operations cost
  based on approved enrollment increases.Funding
  for materials price increases based on actual
  cost increases for research library materials and
  campus acquisition patterns.
• State funding for construction of regional
  libraries, based on specific planned rates of
  storage for each campus. Campus deposits to
  regional libraries became a precondition of State
  funding for campus libraries, which were based on
  standard space planning factors.
• Agreements were fully funded during most of the
  1980s.

11
Note that the level of activity for online access
to journal articles is counted in the millions,
rather than the tens of thousands of interlibrary
loans.  
12

• Library Budget Issues
• UC Library Budget totals 249 million in 2003-04,
  with 206 million or 83 funded from UC and State
  General Funds.
• Acquisitions-processing represents 55 of the
  budget.
• Reference/circulation represents 39 of the
  budget.
• Systemwide Library Automation unit (MELVYL)
  represents 2 of the budget.
• California Digital Library represents 4 of the
  budget.
•  
• Impact of current budget reductions on
  libraries.
• In general, most campuses have attempted to
  protect the collections portion of the library
  budget, either by exempting collections budgets
  from cuts or by allocating a more limited
  reduction to this portion of the library budget.
• Library staff positions have been eliminated,
  resulting in the reduction of library services
  and specialty expertise in certain academic
  program areas.
• Staff reductions have resulted in increased
  response time to patrons,and slowdowns in
  processing materials, retrieving items, and
  restocking shelves.
• Replacement of computer equipment and upgrading
  of information systems have been deferred.
• Challenges for funding new library initiatives.