On September 12, 2012, SHEEO sent a query to the SHEEO-Finance email group asking the following two questions:
- Does the legislature appropriate state funds directly to institutions or to the state higher education board/agency in your state?
- If funds are appropriated to the state higher education agency, are they appropriated in a lump sum amount for the agency to distribute as they see fit or are they earmarked for individual institutions that the higher education agency then distributes?
Answers received from the states:
In Alabama the legislature appropriates state funds directly to the institutions.
For Arizona, state funds are appropriated directly to the institutions as lump sum appropriations. Each university and system office are considered separate budget units for purposes of state appropriations. There have been a few instances where funds were appropriated to our Board, but in those cases they were earmarked for individual institutions. On the other end of the spectrum, when were taking severe budget cuts, the legislature left it up to the Board to determine how to allocate the budget cuts among the institutions.
Funds are appropriated to the Board of Trustees of the University of Connecticut for distribution to all UConn campuses the Board of Regents for Higher Education for distribution to the Connecticut State Universities, the community colleges, and Charter Oak State College.
Legislative appropriations to these two Boards are block grants and may be distributed as seen fit EXCEPT, the total allocation for the four state universities is specified in legislation the total allocation for the 12 community colleges is specified in legislation the total allocation for Charter Oak State College is specified in legislation the Board may hold back amounts to cover central administrative costs distribute funds as it sees fit within those three sectors not move funds among the three sectors.
The Delaware legislature appropriates state funds directly to our higher ed institutions.
In Florida, the state appropriations are made directly to the institutions.
The Idaho Legislature appropriates the funds to the State Board of Education, and then the Board allocates the funds to the individual institutions.
The funds are appropriated lump sum to the Board, but in reality since we use a base-plus budgeting process there is little discretion in the actual allocation of funds.
In Illinois the legislature appropriates state funds directly to institutions, with the exception of state board operating funds and grant funds for higher education grant programs managed by the state board. Those funds are appropriated to the state board by specific grant program and are distributed by the state board to the grant recipients IAW the specific grant rules, guidelines, and procedures.
Directly to the state supported institutions.
Funds are appropriated directly to institutions.
Typically, state funds are appropriated to the Board of Regents for public post secondary institutions coordinated by the Board (community colleges, technical colleges, and a municipal university); and new state funds for general increases for state universities. Base state funds and specific line-item appropriations are typically appropriated to the individual state universities.
Typically, state funds appropriated to the Board for 2-year colleges are appropriated in lump sums and the Board in consultation with the 2-yr colleges determines the distribution of appropriation among the 25 two-year colleges. With regard to the primary appropriation for the municipal university, it is appropriated as a line item that is passed through to the municipal university. A general block grant increase for the state universities has been appropriated to the Board and the Board in turn makes the distribution among the state universities.
State funds to support Kentucky public college and university operating budgets are appropriated directly to the institutions. The funds are appropriated lump sum to each institution and are available for draw down in quarterly allotments. State funds supporting Strategic Investment and Incentive Trust Fund programs, such as Kentucky’s Bucks for Brains program, are appropriated to trust fund accounts maintained by the state’s higher education coordinating board (i.e., the Council on Postsecondary Education) for subsequent distribution to the institutions when certain program criteria are met. Typically, state appropriations to the trust funds are pre-allocated to individual institutions.
For Louisiana, it is a mixed bag of appropriations. For the last couple of years, the state general fund dollars have been appropriated to the state higher education board to be distributed to the system boards and then allocated to the institutions under their management.The language in the appropriations act states:
The appropriations from State General Fund (Direct) contained herein to the Board of Regents pursuant to the budgetary responsibility for all public postsecondary education provided in Article VIII, Section 5 (A) of the Constitution of Louisiana and the power to formulate and revise a master plan for higher education which plan shall include a formula for the equitable distribution of funds to the institutions of postsecondary education pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5(D)(4) of the Constitution of Louisiana, are and shall be deemed to be appropriated to the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, the Board of Supervisors of Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, the Board of Supervisors of Community and Technical Colleges, their respective institutions, the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium and the Office of Student Financial Assistance and in the amounts and for the purposes as specified in a plan and formula for the distribution of said funds as approved by the Board of Regents.
In Mississippi, we have nine appropriation bills. One bill is referred to as On and Off campus which is the general support of the campuses. Although this bill contains a few earmarks, it is received by the Board of Trustees in lump sum for allocation to the campuses by the Board.
Appropriated to the Board of Regents
For the most part appropriated in a lump sum and then allocated to institutions by the Board of Regents.
In New Hampshire, the Legislature makes a lump sum appropriation for both operating and capital support to the University System Board of Trustees, and that entity has full authority to internally allocate the dollars by whatever methodology they determine.
The funds are appropriated directly to the institutions for the senior public institutions. For the community colleges they are appropriated in a lump and then doled out via a sector agreed upon formula.
In North Carolina, base budgets (continuation) are appropriated directly to the institutions. New (expansion) funds are appropriated to the Board for distribution, however many of these are really designated by the budget process.
For the most part, the state appropriates funding directly to the institutions. At times, they have appropriated pools (lump sum) of funds for various specific purposes to the ND University System Office, and then that has been allocated to the institutions by the state board.
Appropriate to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
In lump sum. State Regents are responsible for allocations to all institutions.
In Oregon we receive four appropriations from our Legislature each biennium. These are as follows:
An appropriation for Education and General uses – this is the basic State General Fund funding to support the seven campuses comprising the Oregon University System and the system office.
An appropriation for the Extension Service at Oregon State University – part of its land-grant mission.
An appropriation for the Agriculture Experiment Station at Oregon State – again part of its land-grant mission, and
An appropriation for the Forest Research Laboratory at Oregon State – the final piece of its land-grant mission.
The E&G appropriation referred to above is a lump sum, however, notes attached to the budget bill do specify some specific uses of these funds to include specific public services, etc. But the bulk of the funding is an unrestricted lump sum.
Funds are appropriated to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education in a lump sum for distribution to the 14 state-owned universities through an allocation formula, which we develop and manage. The Legislature separately appropriates funds to the 4 state-related universities (Penn State, University of Pittsburgh, Temple and Lincoln). As for community colleges, there is a lump sum appropriation for them to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, which then distributes the funds to the community colleges through a formula.
The legislature appropriates directly to each institution.
In Texas, the Legislature appropriates state funding directly to the universities and health-related institutions. Community College funding is slightly different. The funds are held at the comptroller’s office and invoiced by the Coordinating Board.
For all sectors, the funds are appropriated lump sum to use as necessary, with a few minor exceptions (i.e., insurance, debt service repayment).
Directly to the institutions.
UVM (Vermont) is probably not a helpful example because the University is not part of a system. We get a direct appropriation that is not earmarked for particular purposes. The Vermont State Colleges (system) gets a separate appropriation which is allocated in the appropriations bill to the individual colleges.
Both. Appropriations for the public baccalaureate institutions are made directly to the institutions. For the community and technical colleges, the appropriations are made in a “lump sum” to the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, which allocates the funds to the colleges.
Washington State appropriates funds directly to our institutions for our public baccalaureates and to the governing board of our community and technical colleges.
The governing board of our community and technical colleges receives a lump sum. Maintenance level funds are not earmarked for specific colleges, although specific policy additions in the budget process are occasionally earmarked for specific institutions.
In Wisconsin, the funds are appropriated to the Board of Regents who in turn allocates the funding to the individual institutions.