Printer Friendly

Planning for the future: the impact on the public university diversity budget in time of recession.


When looking at news related to public higher education, it is not too hard to find a reference to budget cuts. For example, in Nevada, the higher education budget has been cut by 30 percent since 2009, forcing state institutions to turn away students (Kelderman 2011). The U.S. economy, not to mention the global economy, has been suffering the last few years, and public higher education institutions have felt the pain. As states are confronted with the daunting task of balancing their budgets in the face of diminished revenues, state aid to higher education is reduced. As a result of steep cuts to their operating budgets, some flagship institutions such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison are seeking less state regulation and more autonomy (Stripling 2011), particularly since "the flagship research university has a different expected role and mission from that of the regional colleges or the community college system" (Layzell and Lyddon 1990, p. 17).

Eager to increase the percentage of Americans with some form of postsecondary education, President Obama has "proposed a series of federal initiatives to improve college participation and completion rates" (Callan 2011, p. 91). Not even a lingering recession could curb the President's determination to increase access to college, and funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 were used by some states to pump in much needed resources to struggling public institutions. Despite this, many "public 4-year colleges and universities in the United States continue to suffer from the adverse effects of state budget shortfalls that began in the late 1980s" (Okunade 2004, p. 123). Often, when states have to cut their budgets, higher education is at the top of the list for reductions (Delaney and Doyle 2011). As a result, for example, Florida's 11 public institutions had to increase tuition by as much as 15 percent in 2009 and 17 percent in 2010, and Minnesota had to cut back on state financial aid assistance, affecting 9,400 students (Johnson, Oliff, and Williams 2011). Sadly, 43 states have had to make some form of cuts to higher education since the beginning of the 2008 economic recession; Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming were the exceptions (Johnson, Oliff, and Williams 2011).

Thirty-five states expect some form of revenue decline for the 2012 fiscal year, thus forcing further cuts to higher education that could go well into the double-digit percentage range (Basken 2011). As institutions have to make the resulting tough decisions as to what does and does not get funded, programs and offices devoted to diversity are not immune from cutbacks (Gose 2009). At its 2010 annual meeting, the advocacy group American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) conceded that diversity efforts were at risk due to the bad economy and noted that steps should be taken to limit the economy's impact on programs (Howell 2010). At Temple University, which had once been recognized for its highly diverse student body, diversity services were cut substantially as staff members were reduced by 50 percent (Hernandez 2009).

Clearly, America's tough economic times have impacted states to the degree that they have had to cut higher education budgets. The impact of these cuts on the diversity budget is uncertain. What if diversity was central to the institution's planning strategy, like technology? Would diversity then be targeted for harsh cutbacks? The study presented in this article looked at how institutional diversity budgets faired during what is commonly referred to in political and social policy arenas as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The article looks at traditional sources of aid to higher education, considers how institutional budgets have been cut, offers planners some data on how diversity units are coping with budget cuts, and presents possible considerations for future diversity planning.

What if diversity was central to the institution's planning strategy, like technology?



Although still contributing only a small percentage of total institutional resources, the federal government has taken a more active role in supplementing higher education through student aid, grants, and infrastructure support. Past federal aid to higher education has included the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, the G.I. Bill, the National Defense of Education Act, and the Higher Education Act of 1965, which has been reauthorized nine times (Brubacher and Rudy 1976; Heller 2007; Rudolph 1990). Federal aid to higher education during tough economic times is nothing new. During the 1980s, when institutions "were experiencing the effects of the national recession, with declining enrollments and shrinking private support ... administrators used adaptive fiscal strategies in seeking federal support for maintenance of laboratories, libraries, and research facilities" (Trammel 2004, p. 176). Again in the early 1990s, higher education institutions in general, and public institutions in particular, were targeted for cut backs, thus forcing many institutions to look toward federal solutions (Berdahl 1990; Cole 1993; Gumport and Pusser 1999; Zemsky and Massy 1990).


Most of higher education's operating budget comes from the state (Layzell and Lyddon 1990).With the expansion of state university systems and other public postsecondary units, state support of higher education has increased (St. John and Parsons 2004). In their study of state budgets, Delaney and Doyle (2007) observed that nearly half of all revenue for public institutions came from the state. Hauptman (2011) identified three basic funding mechanisms states use to fund higher education: (1) the allocation of taxpayer resources to fund operations, (2) the setting of tuition prices, and (3) the creation of funding levels and rules for determining eligibility and award size for state-funded student aid programs. Traditional funding formulas for higher education institutions used enrollment numbers to determine appropriation (Layzell and Lyddon 1990). However, an emphasis on retention and graduation is emerging as a popular funding alternative. For example, Tennessee recently shifted funding for its public institutions from a formula based on enrollment to an outcomes-based model.


According to Zumeta (2004, p. 85), "state revenues and thus budget expenditures are powerfully driven by economic conditions." Layzell and Lyddon (1990, p. 33) noted that there are "two aspects of the economy that affect state budgeting": the state unemployment rate and the per capita income rate. In other words, if a state is experiencing high unemployment, then more of the state's resources are drained by special services to aid the poor. One such example is necessary spending for Medicaid recipients (Delaney and Doyle 2007; Kane, Orszag, and Gunter 2003). Other areas that compete with higher education for increased attention during bad economic times are welfare-related programs and the criminal justice system (Zumeta 2004). In many cases, incurring debt is precluded by the state constitution (Layzell and Lyddon 1990). Therefore, when state revenues are low, higher education is often targeted for cuts (Delaney and Doyle 2007). Conversely, when the economy is good, higher education receives more support, but when times are tough, "the same logic that benefited higher education during booms will hurt higher education during recessions" (Delaney and Doyle 2007, p. 56). The public perception is that higher education has the unique ability to absorb deep cuts by increasing tuition and fees, soliciting private donations, and receiving grants (Zumeta 2004).



A recent report suggests that "state appropriations for higher education declined in the recessions of the early 1990s and early in this decade; in 2010" (Callan 2011, p. 93; Center for the Study of Education Policy 2010). Over 75 percent of college students attend a public institution that receives a large portion of its operating funds from the state (Douglass 2010). However, as previously noted, many states have had to dramatically cut their budgets to make up for lost revenues and huge budget deficits. Zumeta (2007, p. 58) noted that "a shortfall in state coffers makes the higher education sector a prime target for budget cutting." As a result, colleges are forced to make painful cuts while trying not to disrupt their quest to provide a quality education. Gumport and Pusser (1999) suggested that in making these tough decisions on fiscal realignment, institutions sometimes adopt the principles of resource dependence theory as a way to offset the impact of budget cuts, adding that "as institutions reallocate resources and eliminate some of the functions they have traditionally provided, they make choices about what the future priorities of universities should be" (p. 153). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004, p. 12) described resource dependence theory as a mechanism by which an organization "will take on and reflect the organizational characteristics of the principal external resource providers in its environment." While budget cuts can affect both academic and support services units, diversity programs may be the biggest loser.


To address needed budget cuts, many institutions target faculty positions by increasing the use of graduate students and part-time and/or temporary instructors to teach courses (Zumeta 2004). Other cost-saving approaches include the increased use of technology as an instructional tool to reach more students (Zumeta 2004). In the 1980s, when institutions had to make drastic cuts, "many leaders tightened their grip on institutional budgeting procedures and developed hierarchical systems of goal setting and academic planning in which small numbers of administrators made decisions about program cuts, program closures, and the reallocation of resources" (Dill 1997, p. 93). With uncertain incoming revenue streams, many states are urging institutions to move student service functions and instruction online (Meyer 2011).



Institutions of higher education are often identified as places where students can develop good citizenship, which requires developing an awareness of and an affinity for social justice issues (Mayhew and Fernandez 2007). These institutions also serve as training grounds for the would-be difference makers of the future. Given the changing demographics of the U.S. population, including the rapid increase in the minority population in general and Latino population in particular, it is imperative that students on college campuses gain exposure to multiple points of view. This exposure may come through formal instruction, speaker series, planned events and activities, and affiliation with student organizations. Such activities are often initiated and/or facilitated through a diversity/multicultural office. Brown, Butler, and Donahoo (2004, p. 116) noted that diversity programs "serve to eliminate some of the barriers to equitable participation by all persons without respect to race or other subjective categories."


The University of Michigan affirmative action case, Grutter v. Bollinger, established that the federal government has a compelling interest in having a diverse student body on college campuses (Brown, Butler, and Donahoo 2004). Further, many college presidents have sought to enhance diversity by increasing the number of students of color (Hossler 2004). Already stretched thin, "public universities have a limited number of levers to help them achieve their enrollment goals related to revenue, diversity, and academic quality" (Hossler 2004, p. 151). This then presents a challenge to administrators, who must find the right balance of priorities (Hossler 2004) and provide adequate funding. Gumport and Pusser (1997) observed the challenges higher education leaders face in trying to juggle mandated priorities and budgetary cutbacks. Leaders must often deal with the resulting inconsistencies in strategic direction, such as the demand to increase diversity while phasing out affirmative action and picking up more of the institution's operating costs (Gumport and Pusser 1999). The continued increase in the number of initiatives during times of fiscal constraint only feeds into the adage that personnel must sometimes "do more with less" (Gumport and Pusser 1999, p. 151). Of course, all eyes will be on the latest higher education affirmative action case to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the high court's 2013 ruling will certainly have implications for future diversity efforts.



As public institutions are confronted with budget uncertainties as a result of a still shaky economy, it is important for them to have some alternative, if not creative, plans for enhancing revenues and reducing operating costs (Rudden 2010). Some of these plans may include deferring capital expenditures, reducing facility operating costs, increasing use of existing facilities, improving sustainability, and encouraging technological adaptation (Rudden 2010).

Hurtado and Dey (1997) noted that institutional planning for diversity can be challenging and complex, and a key component in diversity planning is the development of realistic and carefully considered goals and strategies such as "curricular innovations to increase knowledge of diverse groups, co-curricular programming designed to promote dialogue among groups where myths and stereotypes can be debunked, and workshops for staff where communication can be improved among groups and perceived conflict between groups can be converted into common goals for the institution" (p. 416). Peterson and Dill (1997, p. 10) observed that the "pressure to enhance diversity has created intensive competition for scarce resources."


Stewart (1991) noted that there are three stages in an institution's level of multicultural awareness as it relates to diversity planning. In the first stage, monocultural, there is no formal planning for diversity and no budget directed toward diversity. The second stage, nondiscriminatory, entails a top-down planning approach with temporary organizational structures (such as a formal diversity committee) and special funding allocated for such purposes. The last stage, multicultural, incorporates multiple planning approaches through coordinated planning activities and a budget that is planned and coordinated around the various sectors (Hurtado and Dey 1997; Stewart 1991).

A key component of diversity planning is the evaluation of sponsored events. Hurtado and Dey (1997, p. 419) cautioned that "it is important to develop evaluation components that can be used in future decision making or reports to funding agencies that have provided incentive monies to achieve diversity goals." In Stewart's (1991) multicultural awareness and planning model, an evaluation component was nonexistent in the monocultural stage and used sparingly as an ad hoc in the nondiscriminatory stage. In the multicultural stage, a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of diversity efforts is apparent (Hurtado and Dey 1997; Stewart 1991).



The study presented in this article used survey research to gather essential information to answer the following question: How are budget cuts affecting diversity budgets? The sample included heads of non-academic diversity units only. Those diversity offices affiliated with an academic area, such as a multicultural affairs unit within a College of Education or Arts and Sciences, were not included. Federal programs geared to assist minority populations, such as TRIO programs, were also not included.


The sample included administrative heads (directors, deans, etc.) at the nation's 50 flagship universities (see figure 1) who oversaw a diversity budget at their institution and who were familiar with the state of budget cuts as they related to their institution and their diversity area for the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. All subjects were adult working professionals who could voluntarily participate (or not) as they had the time or inclination. A total of 91 diversity administrators at the 50 institutions were identified for this survey. Because responses were anonymous, it could not be determined which institutions were represented in the study. IRB approval was granted to conduct this research.
Figure 1 List of Flagship Institutions in Sample

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
University of Alaska
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California
University of Colorado, Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii
University of Idaho
University of Illinois
University of Indiana
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
Louisiana State University
University of Maine, Orono
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
University of Mississippi
University of Missouri, Columbia
University of Montana
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
Rutgers University (New Jersey)
University of New Mexico
State University of New York, Albany
University of North Carolina
University of North Dakota
Ohio State University
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
Pennsylvania State University
University of Rhode Island
University of South Carolina
University of South Dakota
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas, Austin
University of Utah
University of Vermont
University of Virginia
University of Washington, Seattle
University of West Virginia
University of Wisconsin, Madison
University of Wyoming


In August 2010, a database was created of e-mail addresses of the heads of non-academic diversity units at the 50 flagship institutions. This was accomplished through a multi-step process. The websites of the institutions in the sample were searched for (a) diversity offices, (b) diversity unit heads, and (c) contact information. The search process included visiting the institution's website directly, and then, once on the website, using the search window on the institution's home page to search for various terms including but not limited to "diversity" or "multicultural affairs" (or whatever term the institution used). The search window also was used to find contact information for diversity unit heads. The search process took approximately 20 to 30 minutes and required following links to additional web pages to determine if additional diversity units or different data were available. After all links and related pages were reviewed on each institution's website, the relevant information (including office description and contact information) was printed and used to create and contact the sample.


The questions on the survey instrument sought to answer the following:

1. What are the sources of funding for diversity units?

2. How are college diversity officials dealing with cuts in the diversity budget during an economic recession?

3. To what extent was the diversity unit's budget cut in 2008, 2009, and 2010?

4. How were cuts implemented?

5. What were the cuts to the institution?

6. How did cuts to diversity units compare to those to other units?

7. What was the impact of cuts to the diversity unit?

An online survey was constructed to solicit data designed to answer these questions; online surveys allow for a quicker and simpler process of data management and collection. Early draft survey questions were revised for clarity until they were finalized, and the appendix presents the final survey questions and their exact wording and sequence. The 91 diversity heads selected for the study were contacted by e-mail to notify them of their selection. They were then asked to log into a website using the link provided in the e-mail beginning on August 16, 2010. Survey participants were also asked to read the informed consent and, if they agreed to proceed, to accept the terms of the study. All participants were asked the exact same 19 questions relating to their area, the budget, and demographics. The surveys were distributed, collected, and analyzed through, an electronic survey tool. During the course of the study, a reminder e-mail was sent. As of August 31, 2010, the survey had been completed by 32 of the 91 diversity heads contacted (35 percent).


Survey answers were analyzed and interpreted. Some survey questions required an open-ended response, where respondents could provide as long or as short an answer as they chose. Because of this, the predominant analytical method used was content analysis, and a Holsti (1969) method was used as a guide to the analysis. Responses were coded for emerging themes using a printout of responses grouped by question; all of the answers were analyzed in a similar manner.


The study only looked at diversity offices at the 50 flagship institutions. Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn about other public institutions (four-year or community colleges), private institutions, or for-profit institutions. Also, even though an exhaustive search was made on each institution's website for diversity units, there may have been some offices that were overlooked or that could not be found during the search.



When asked to name the office or official each unit reported to, 34 percent of respondents (11) said they reported to a vice president and 19 percent (6) said they reported to a dean, in most instances of student affairs. However, not all participants were concentrated under the student affairs division. Nineteen percent (6) reported to the provost and another 13 percent (4) reported directly to the president of their institution. An additional 16 percent (5) reported to other officials. Sixty-five percent (20) of the respondents held the title of chief diversity officer (CDO) at their institution.

When it came to the diversity budget, 97 percent (30) of respondents reported that they received the bulk of their funds from a state source. In addition to state aid, other significant funding sources included private sources (26 percent), grants (23 percent), federal stimulus funds (7 percent), and other sources (26 percent) such as student activity fees. In an effort to compare current funding sources with those from before the recession hit, participants were asked to identify funding sources three years prior to the survey. The sources hardly changed: 94 percent (29) indicated state funds as the primary source, 23 percent (7) cited private funds, 19 percent (6) received grants, and 26 percent (8) noted other sources (e.g., student fees).


Results varied in the percentage of cuts each unit received for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 (see figure 2). In 2008, a majority of respondents saw cuts to their budgets in the range of 1 to 33 percent. Forty-two percent (8) indicated no cuts to their units and 16 percent (3) cited cuts in the 1 to 4 percent range. Twenty-six percent (5) reported cuts between 5 and 10 percent, 5 percent (1) received cuts between 11 and 15 percent, and 11 percent (2) experienced cuts over 16 percent, with one diversity professional citing cuts as high as 33 percent. In 2009, not as many units were spared cuts when compared with the previous year, as only 15 percent (3) saw no change in their budget. Thirty-five percent (7) reported cuts in the 1 to 4 percent range. Cuts between 5 and 10 percent remained relatively the same at 25 percent (5), and there was a slight increase in those experiencing cuts between 11 and 15 percent, with 10 percent (2) noting such increases. Cuts over 16 percent rose modestly to 15 percent (3) of respondents. In 2010, there was an increase of 40 percent (8) in those citing no change in their unit's budget. There were also increases in cuts ranging between 1 and 4 percent and between 5 and 10 percent at 20 percent (4) and 30 percent (6) of respondents respectively. However, cuts in excess of 16 percent were not as common, as only 5 percent (1) noted such cuts.

When asked how they implemented these cuts, 63 percent of respondents noted that they had to cut some programming functions (see figure 3). Speaking about the programming cuts, one respondent noted that they "transferred some functions to another office." Thirty-two percent of respondents reported that they had to eliminate positions. One respondent stated, "a key position was not filled when a person left," while another noted that they had to reduce a position "from 100 percent to 50 percent." Nearly 50 percent of respondents indicated that they had to cut back on outreach and promotion in some capacity, while 11 percent noted that they had to reduce their hours of operation. Thirty-two percent cited other forms of cuts such as transferal of functions to another office.

When asked what the immediate future held in terms of budget cuts, 43 percent of respondents anticipated additional cuts in 2011. However, many were unsure of by how much the budget would be cut and estimated cuts ranging from 2 to 7 percent (although one respondent estimated a hit of 40 percent). It is understandable that the actual percentage of the cut was uncertain, as most state institutions set their budgets based on state allocations. One respondent spoke of the situation regarding the budget as "not known; depends on the state of the economy for the state."

Over the last three years, respondents noted institutional cuts ranging from as little as 3 percent to as high as 28 percent. The cuts seemed substantial to one respondent, who sarcastically referred to the amount of cuts as "a ton!" When asked specifically about how much had to be cut from the budget of their actual unit, responses ranged from 15 to 20 percent. When asked how these cuts compared with cuts to other units within the institution, 5 percent of respondents considered the cuts to their budgets to be more, 30 percent thought they were less, and 65 percent considered them to be the same.

When asked to comment on what will happen to diversity efforts within their division, some respondents echoed the sentiments of Gumport and Pusser (1999) that institutional leaders increasingly will have to do more with less given budget cuts. In fact, one respondent said exactly that: "having always been limited, trying to do more with less." Another respondent was more specific: "more work, less staffing and support funds." Some respondents felt that their units were unfairly targeted for cuts. One noted, "Diversity efforts are not a priority at our institution. Unfortunately, these types of programming have been the ones most affected by budget cuts." Another respondent commented, "Modest support in the past, we are the college's only concerted diversity effort ... does not look good." Looking at the long-term impact, another respondent stated, "Diversity will continue to suffer as those that already have little state appropriated funding and serve people on the margins are impacted. All of the positive work will be lost." As to what will happen in the future to diversity efforts if these cuts continue, one respondent predicted:
   If budget cuts continue, then there will need to be a hard
   examination of the type of programs being offered and how they are
   being offered. It is possible that programs will not continue or
   staff positions will not be filled.

However, some optimism surfaced in the face of cuts to the diversity budget. Said one respondent, "They [cuts] will continue, we will look for more outside resources." Another respondent offered, "We will just have to find creative ways to do central and critical programming. Collaborate with other offices."

When asked to indicate their unit's original goals prior to budget cuts in 2010, 85 percent noted that a critical goal was to provide programming (see figure 4). Seventy-five percent stated that they also did outreach and promotional events and 10 percent noted that they had EEO/Affirmative Action responsibilities. Thirty-five percent of respondents mentioned other goals not listed such as academic support, ombudsperson, faculty professional development, institutional change, assessment, and policy review.

When asked whether they had to adjust any goals they had once hoped to accomplish, respondents continued to echo the "do more with less" theme. One respondent added that they had to "think of ways to be more creative. Rethink programs and services." Another noted, "We had to be more strategic on how we planned our program." For one respondent, the cuts did impact the work with faculty:
   We used to offer stipends (in partnership with the Office of
   Academic Affairs) to entice faculty to participate in professional
   development activities related to increasing diversity and equity
   within the classroom. We have not been able to offer them for the
   past two years.


In discussing the potential hit to diversity programs as a result of the recession, Claremont Graduate University researcher Daryl G. Smith suggested that if institutions were serious about their commitment to diversity, then economic conditions would not impact their diversity efforts (Gose 2009). This study concludes that the bad economy has forced public institutions to make cuts in their operating budgets. As a result, many areas, some more than others, have had to do more with less, and diversity units are no exception. However, diversity budgets are not experiencing cuts as great as those to other units, which might be a surprise to some. In actuality, this finding should not be a shock if institutions are as committed to diversity as they claim to be, since it confirms that many institutional leaders are making an effort to protect their diversity budget despite the lingering recession.


If diversity is more than just a buzz word, if it is truly a core value within the institution, then some form of systematic plan should be in place to implement, monitor, and recalibrate diversity efforts as necessary. As observed by Hurtado and Dey (1997, p. 417), "planning for diversity goals and programming initiatives should be linked and consistent with overall goals for the campus and should be discussed along with general planning and programming efforts." Stewart (1991) noted that an institution that exhibits multicultural awareness has some form of coordinated planning activities and has budgeted accordingly for those activities. It is not enough to minimize operational funding losses for diversity programs during tough economic times; diversity must be made a part of the institution's central planning efforts. It should be well known that diversity is important to the institution, and that it will be funded regardless of the financial situation.

Survey Question                                       Type of Question

Do you understand your rights as a human subject?     Consent

--Yes --No

Do you agree to participate in this study?            Consent

--Yes --No

If both answers are "yes," the individual will be
allowed to proceed with the following questions.

What office do you report to?                         Position

--President --Provost --Vice President --Dean

Are you the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) for your    Position

What is your current source of funding?               Funding

--State --Private --Grants --Stimulus --Other

What was your source of funding three years ago?      Funding
(Check all that apply)

--State --Private --Grants --N/A

What percentage of your budget was cut in the         Budget Cuts--%
following years?

--2008 --2009 --2010

If your budget was cut, how did you implement the     Budget Cuts--%

--Eliminated positions --Cuts to programs
--Limited outreach --Reduction in hours --Other

Are any further cuts projected for your unit in the   Future Cuts
upcoming year?

If further cuts are projected, by how much or what    Future Cuts

How much has your institution had to cut in the       Budget Cuts--$
budget over the last three years?

How much has your unit had to cut in the budget       Budget Cuts--$
over the last three years?

How does the cut in your budget compare to cuts in    Comparison
other areas at your institution?

In your view, what will happen to diversity efforts   Effects
in your division?

What were your original goals? (Check all that        Goals

--EEO/Affirmative --Outreach --Programming --Other

Have you had to adjust your goals as to what you      Goals
can accomplish?

How long have you been in your current position?      Demographics

--less than 1 year --1-3 years --more than 3 years

What is your race/ethnicity?                          Demographics

--American Indian or Alaskan Native --Black
--Hispanic --White

What is the size of the undergraduate student         Demographics
enrollment at your institution?

--Less than 1,000 --1,000-2,500 --2,501-5,000
--5,001-15,000 --15,001-25,000 --Over 25,000


Basken, P. 2011. Obama's Budget, Though Generous, Still Signals Austerity for Colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web: Though/126439/.

Berdahl, R. 1990. Public Universities and State Governments: Is the Tension Benign? Educational Record 71 (1): 38-42.

Brown, M. C., II., J. L. Butler, and S. Donahoo. 2004. Desegregation and Diversity: Finding New Ways to Meet the Challenge. In Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales, ed. E. P. St. John and M. D. Parsons, 108-23. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brubacher, J. S., and W. Rudy. 1976. Higher Education in Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 1636-1976. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row.

Callan, P. M. 2011. Reframing Access and Opportunity: Public Policy Dimensions. In The States and Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability, 2nd ed., ed. D. E. Heller, 87-105. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Center for the Study of Education Policy. 2010. 2010 Summary Tables Fiscal Year 2009-10. Grapevine. Illinois State University.

Cole, J. R. 1993. Balancing Acts: Dilemmas of Choice Facing Research Universities. Daedalus 122 (4): 1-36.

Delaney, J. A., and W. R. Doyle. 2007. The Role of Higher Education in State Budgets. In State Postsecondary Education Research: New Methods to Inform Policy and Practice, ed. K. M. Shaw and D. E. Heller, 55-76. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

--. 2011. State Spending on Higher Education: Testing the Balance Wheel Over Time. Journal of Education Finance 36 (4): 343-68.

Dill, D. D. 1997. Effects of Competition on Diverse Institutional Contexts. In Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook for Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions, ed. M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, and L. A. Mets, 88-105. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Douglass, J. A. 2010. Higher Education Budgets and the Global Recession. Research & Occasional Papers Series: CSHE.4.10. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education.

Gose, B. 2009. Diversity Takes a Hit During Tough Times: Some Campuses Try to Protect Gains, but Others Scale Back their Efforts. Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web:

Gumport, P. J., and B. Pusser. 1997. Restructuring the Academic Environment. In Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook for Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions, ed. M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, and L. A. Mets, 453-78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

--. 1999. University Restructuring: The Role of Economic and Political Contexts. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 14, ed. J. C. Smart, 146-200. New York: Agathon Press.

Hauptman, A. M. 2011. Reforming How States Finance Higher Education. In The States and Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability, 2nd ed., ed. D. E. Heller, 61-83. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Heller, D. E. 2007. The Challenges of Comparative State-Level Higher Education Policy Research. In State Postsecondary Education Research: New Methods to Inform Policy and Practice, ed. K. M. Shaw and D. E. Heller, 1-10. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Hernandez, A. 2009. Temple University's Commitment to Diversity Questioned. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, October 28. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web:

Holsti, O. R. 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hossler, D. 2004. Refinancing Public Universities: Student Enrollments, Incentive-Based Budgeting, and Incremental Revenue. In Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales, ed. E. P. St. John and M. D. Parsons, 145-63. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Howell, W. L. J. 2010. Affirmative Action Advocates Consider Recession's Impact on Diversity. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, July 1. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web:

Hurtado, S., and E. L. Dey. 1997. Achieving the Goals of Multiculturalism and Diversity. In Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook for Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions, ed. M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, and L. A. Mets, 405-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, N., P. Oliff, and E. Williams. 2011. An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web:

Kane, T. J., P. R. Orszag, and D. L. Gunter. 2003. State Fiscal Constraints and Higher Education Spending: The Role of Medicaid and the Business Cycle. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Kelderman, E. 2011. In Nevada, Harsh Reality Hits Higher Education: Years of Budget Cuts Sap Campuses and Morale. Chronicle of Higher Education, August 28. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web:

Layzell, D. T., and J. W. Lyddon. 1990. Budgeting for Higher Education at the State Level: Enigma, Paradox, and Ritual. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC.

Mayhew, M. J., and S. D. Fernandez. 2007. Pedagogical Practices That Contribute to Social Justice Outcomes. Review of Higher Education 31 (1): 55-80.

Meyer, K. A. 2011. Conclusion: State Policy and Technology: Aims, Realities, and the Uncertain Future. In The States and Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability, 2nd ed., ed. D. E. Heller, 227-47. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Okunade, A. A. 2004. What Factors Influence State Appropriations for Public Higher Education in the United States? Journal of Education Finance 30 (2): 123-38.

Peterson, M. W., and D. D. Dill. 1997. Understanding the Competitive Environment of the Postsecondary Knowledge Industry. In Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook for Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions, ed. M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, and L. A. Mets, 3-29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rudden, M. S. 2010. Five Recession-Driven Strategies for Planning and Managing Campus Facilities. Planning for Higher Education 39 (1): 5-17.

Rudolph, F. 1990. The American College & University: A History. 1990 ed. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

St. John, E. P., and M. D. Parsons. 2004. Introduction. In Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales, ed. E. P. St. John and M. D. Parsons, 1-16. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stewart, J. B. 1991. Planning for Cultural Diversity: A Case Study. In Cultural Pluralism on Campus, ed. H. E. Cheatham, 161-81. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Stripling, J. 2011. Flagships Just Want to Be Alone: Hard Times Strain Relations Between Big Public Research Universities and Their States. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from the World Wide Web:

Trammell, M. L. 2004. Reconstructing Rationales for Public Funding: A Case Study. In Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales, ed. E. P. St. John and M. D. Parsons, 164-85. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zemsky, R., and W. F. Massy. 1990. Cost Containment: Committing to a New Economic Reality. Change 22 (6): 16-22.

Zumeta, W. 2004. State Higher Education Financing: Demand Imperatives Meet Structural, Cyclical, and Political Constraints. In Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales, ed. E. P. St. John and M. D. Parsons, 79-107. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

--. 2007. Financing Higher Education Access in Challenging Times. In The NEA 2007 Almanac of Higher Education, 57-70. Washington, DC: NEA.


Jeffery Wilson is an assistant professor in higher and adult education at the University of Memphis where he coordinates the student personnel degree program. His areas of interest are college student affairs and diversity, specifically campus climate and multicultural education. He completed his doctoral studies in higher educational leadership at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and received his master's degree in student affairs administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Figure 2 Percentage of Budget Cuts for 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and

                              2009-2011 FY Budget

2008-2010     No Change     1%-4%     5%-10%    11%-15%     > 16%
Budget                    Decrease   Decrease   Decrease   Decrease

2008 N = 19    8 (42%)    3 (16%)    5 (26%)     1 (5%)    2 (11%)
2009 N = 20    3 (15%)    7 (35%)    5 (25%)    2 (10%)    3 (15%)
2010 N = 20    8 (40%)    4 (20%)    6 (30%)     1 (5%)     1 (5%)

Note: Numbers of respondents (N) represent those diversity
professionals who were able to give actual budget cut percentages.

Figure 3 How Diversity Cuts Were Implemented

Eliminated positions   32%
Program cuts           63%
Limited outreach       47%
Reduced hours          11%
Other                  32%

Note: N = 19.

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Figure 4 Diversity Units' Original Goals

EEO/Affirmative       10%
Outreach              75%
Programming           85%
Other                 35%

Note: Table made from pie chart.
COPYRIGHT 2013 Society for College and University Planning
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Wilson, Jeffery L.
Publication:Planning for Higher Education
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2013
Previous Article:Understanding the effects of state oversight and fiscal policy on university revenues: considerations for financial planning.
Next Article:Guiding social media at our institutions.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters