Tag: Financial

  • Policy and Financial Issues Drove November Cuts

    Policy and Financial Issues Drove November Cuts

    Multiple public and private universities announced job and program cuts, as well as other money-saving measures, last month in response to financial challenges driven by a range of factors.

    Some institutions noted the loss of federal research funding, while others cited declining international enrollment amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on foreign students. Still others pointed to sectorwide challenges, including the worsening public perception of higher education. And some colleges cut low-demand programs to comply with state laws such as Ohio’s Senate Bill 1.

    Here is a look at job and program cuts as well as other moves announced last month.

    University of Central Florida

    The public university cut 65 jobs last month, 57 of them at the affiliated Florida Solar Energy Center, Central Florida Public Media reported.

    The center has been the state’s designated energy research institute since 1975.

    UCF officials told the news outlet in a statement that the university “made the difficult but necessary decision to reduce staffing at the Florida Solar Energy Center to ensure responsible stewardship of university and state resources,” noting that the center was not financially sustainable.

    University officials also cited a decline in external funding, which hampered research activities, as well as “recent shifts in federal funding priorities in energy research, including reductions and cancellations of key programs that historically supported the center’s research activities.”

    In addition to cuts at the Florida Solar Energy Center, UCF also laid off six employees in its technology department and two workers at the UCF Arboretum, The Orlando Sentinel reported.

    Lewis University

    Citing a significant decline in international students, the private university in Illinois is cutting 10 percent of its workforce through a combination of layoffs and buyouts, Shaw Local reported.

    Altogether, 63 people are on the way out.

    The university reportedly laid off 17 staff members and 16 professors and eliminated some vacant roles. Some eligible employees opted into early retirement programs offered by the university.

    Lewis officials told the news outlet that international enrollment has collapsed, dropping from a peak of 1,417 students to just 847 this fall. That decline comes amid a flurry of action at the federal level, where the Trump administration has sought to limit international enrollment and increased scrutiny of foreign college applicants as it takes a hard line on immigration policy over all.

    Calvin University

    The private Christian university in Michigan is shedding jobs and programs as part of a restructuring that will see multiple faculty members laid off over two years, MLive reported.

    Calvin is cutting 12.5 percent of the faculty. While the university did not specify a precise head count, it employed 363 faculty members last fall, 197 of whom were full-time, according to its Common Data Set. Based on those numbers, Calvin appears poised to cut as many as 45 professors.

    University officials declined to provide the exact number of jobs cut to Inside Higher Ed.

    “Most of these departures are voluntary (e.g., retirements, voluntary exit incentive packages, etc.), and many were identified during budget planning that occurred within the academic division last year,” President Greg Elzinga wrote in an email to the campus community last month announcing the changes. “Involuntary departures will amount to approximately 3% of our current full-time faculty workforce, and those impacted have already been notified.”

    Elzinga also told MLive that Calvin’s finances remain strong and it is on track for a balanced budget for the current academic year, despite sectorwide challenges such as diminishing public confidence in higher education and international enrollment declines stemming from federal policy changes. Visa processing delays reportedly cost Calvin 65 international students who were unable to make it to campus.

    Rider University

    The private university in New Jersey announced last month that officials plan to lay off 35 to 40 full-time faculty members, cut salaries by 14 percent and enact other cost-cutting measures as it navigates financial challenges.

    President John R. Loyack wrote in a letter to the campus community that the university was taking steps to address “the financial risks that have grown increasingly serious in recent years and have intensified in severity in recent months.” He noted that the university faces “a significant cash shortfall” due to “new and unforeseen developments” and could run out of money “to meet its payroll and other obligations before the end of the current fiscal year.”

    Rider also plans to indefinitely suspend retirement contributions, increase faculty workloads, end faculty tuition remission benefits and cut some senior administrative roles, among other moves.

    The university was placed on probation by its accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, in late October due to compliance concerns related to financial standards.

    Keene State College

    Grappling with a $4 million budget deficit, the public college in New Hampshire is cutting 25 staff positions and offering voluntary separation agreements to faculty, The Keene Sentinel reported.

    Of the 25 staff positions cut last month, eight were reportedly vacant.

    So far, 12 faculty members have accepted buyouts, reportedly in line with the goal of 12 to 15; eight of those professors will exit after the fall semester and four will leave in the spring.

    Roger Williams University

    The private university in Rhode Island is mandating unpaid furloughs for up to half of its full-time workforce in an effort to shrink a projected $3.5 million budget gap, The Boston Globe reported.

    According to the newspaper, layoffs are not currently being considered.

    A university statement described the mandatory, unpaid one-week furloughs as a “temporary measure that will allow the university to preserve positions, wage increases, and healthcare benefits for our dedicated staff and faculty, while maintaining the student experience.”

    University of Providence

    A split from the Providence Health System has prompted officials at the private Catholic university in Great Falls, Mont., to ask its Board of Trustees to declare financial exigency, NBC Montana reported.

    While Providence Health has provided financial support, that arrangement is reportedly set to end in December 2027 and the university must become financially independent, which means plugging an $8 million budget shortfall. University officials told NBC Montana that it previously relied on $8 million or more in health system support to balance its budget.

    Layoffs and program cuts are expected to be part of the financial recovery plan.

    Cornell College

    Multiple programs are set to be eliminated at the private liberal arts college in Iowa, a process that officials said in a statement last month was driven by student enrollment data and interest.

    Majors being cut include classical studies, French and Francophone studies, German studies, religion, Spanish, and multiple music programs. Students enrolled in those majors will be able to complete their degrees through teach-out plans, according to the announcement.

    An unspecified number of job cuts will accompany the program eliminations.

    The New School

    The private university in New York City announced last month that it is offering faculty buyouts, freezing hiring for certain positions, cutting pay for some employees and pausing retirement contributions for up to 18 months, among other changes, in an effort to balance its budget.

    Further, the New School plans to pause admission to most doctorate programs for next year. Program closures are also expected.

    President Joel Towers wrote last month, “The New School continues to face serious and persistent financial deficits that require immediate decisive action.” Now the university is offering early retirement packages to professors and voluntary separation packages to employees, as well as cutting top salaries by 5 to 10 percent. Still, he wrote that job cuts “will very likely be necessary” depending on “participation in voluntary programs” and “progress toward our budget goals.”

    University of Lynchburg

    Faculty buyouts are on the table at the private liberal arts college in Virginia as it seeks to reduce a persistent budget deficit it has been whittling down for the past three years, Cardinal News reported.

    That deficit has reportedly dropped from $12 million in late 2022 to about $2.7 million currently.

    Ohio State University

    The public flagship is eliminating eight programs to comply with Senate Bill 1—controversial and sweeping legislation that has forced higher ed cuts across the state—The Columbus Dispatch reported.

    Programs on the chopping block, all at the undergraduate level, include an integrated major in math and English, medieval and Renaissance studies, music theory, and musicology, among others. Students currently enrolled will be able to complete those programs before they are terminated.

    Signed into law earlier this year, SB1 bans diversity efforts in higher education and requires colleges to drop undergraduate programs that yield fewer than five degrees annually, averaged over a three-year period. However, colleges can ask the Ohio Department of Education for waivers to keep such programs, which Ohio State has done for a dozen offerings.

    Source link

  • Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

    Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

    The financial health of UK universities has become a pressing concern, with widespread reports of deficits and shrinking operating surpluses. Yet until now, robust evidence on how these pressures shape institutional decisions – on investment, staffing, research, and student services – has been limited.

    To address this evidence gap, interviews were conducted with chief financial officers and directors of finance in 74 of the 133 higher education institutions in England between March and May 2025, covering 56 per cent of institutions.

    The study covered all TRAC peer groups, from research-intensive universities to specialist arts and music colleges. The findings reveal stark differences in financial resilience across the sector, but also common themes that underscore systemic vulnerabilities.

    A striking 85 per cent of institutions reported either an operating deficit, break-even position, or reduced surplus in the current year. Only 11 institutions – just under 15 per cent – maintained or improved their operating surplus. Even among these, financial pressures were evident, with cost-cutting and efficiency drives mirroring those in deficit institutions.

    Low research intensity institutions are most exposed, with 95 per cent in deficit or reduced surplus, while high research intensity universities fare slightly better at 79 per cent. Arts and music colleges also show significant vulnerability, with nearly nine in ten reporting financial strain.

    Strategies and trade-offs

    The origins of financial weakness vary by institutional type. For research intensive universities, the decline in international tuition fee income is the dominant concern, compounded by visa restrictions and heightened global competition. Medium and low research intensity institutions cite rising staff and estate costs, alongside pension liabilities. For arts and music colleges, the freeze on UK tuition fees was a critical issue, although face additional challenges given the liability of smallness.

    These challenges are not short-term blips. An overwhelming 97 per cent of respondents view the current situation as a structural, long-term problem. Many argue that the sector’s business model – heavily reliant on international student income and constrained by capped domestic fees – is fundamentally unsustainable. And more worryingly difficult to change in the short to medium term.

    Faced with financial stringency, universities are deploying a mix of defensive and adaptive strategies. Borrowing has been rare – only five per cent of deficit institutions increased debt – but asset sales and diversification of income streams are common. Over three-quarters of institutions are actively seeking new revenue sources, from commercialisation and estate rental to online learning and transnational education partnerships.

    Interestingly, financial pressure is not uniformly leading to retrenchment. While some institutions have closed departments or dropped programmes – particularly among medium and less research-intensive universities – many are introducing new courses, both undergraduate and postgraduate, to attract students and generate income.

    Staffing, however, tells a more sobering story. Nearly half of deficit institutions have implemented voluntary redundancy schemes, and around one-fifth have resorted to compulsory redundancies. Recruitment freezes are widespread, affecting academic and professional staff alike. These measures, while necessary for financial stability, risk eroding institutional capacity and morale.

    Counting the cost

    The ripple effects of financial constraint extend beyond staffing. Research support is under significant strain: over a third of institutions report cuts to research facilities and internal consortia. Yet there are pockets of investment – 18 per cent of institutions have increased funding for libraries and data services, and nearly one-fifth have boosted support for industrial collaborations, reflecting a strategic pivot toward partnerships and innovation.

    Student experience has, so far, been relatively protected. Most institutions have maintained spending on mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion initiatives, though career development and academic support have seen reductions in about a quarter of cases. Investment in estates is more uneven: while many institutions are deferring maintenance and new builds, over half are increasing spending on digital transformation – a clear signal of shifting priorities.

    Financial turbulence is also reshaping leadership dynamics. Nearly 90 per cent of respondents agree that leadership teams are under heightened pressure and scrutiny, with a growing emphasis on short-term decision-making. This environment is taking a toll on staff wellbeing: two-thirds of respondents report negative impacts on mental health, alongside rising workloads and job insecurity. Trust in leadership has declined in almost half of institutions, underscoring the human dimension of the financial crisis.

    Perhaps the most sobering finding is the sector’s view of external support. Over 60 per cent of respondents rated government and regional assistance as ineffective. The message is clear: incremental adjustments will not suffice. Respondents called for a fundamental review of the funding model in higher education. Without decisive intervention, the risk is not just institutional hardship but systemic decline – jeopardising the UK’s global standing in higher education and research.

    Source link

  • The future of financial hardship support needs to be flexible

    The future of financial hardship support needs to be flexible

    The government’s recent white paper on Post-16 Education and Skills places flexibility and choice at the centre of the future student experience.

    When it comes to students, the government wants universities and colleges to adapt to a much wider range of demographics and to further embrace diversity – while continuing to break down the barriers to opportunity for students from all backgrounds.

    One of the ways to strengthen opportunity is through the additional forms of financial support (via bursaries, scholarships and special-case funds) that higher education institutions provide for those students most at risk of dropping out, or those simply denied opportunity in the first place.

    When it comes to this funding, the sector needs to work much harder in supporting a more varied set of future students, whilst making better use of data to design support packages, and adapting to the real-time user requirements for this type of funding.

    Beyond the post-school model

    The majority model of financial support is still designed primarily for a post-school entrant market (in line with access and participation plans) but we now need to evolve this for a much broader range of working students, part-time students, later life students and so on – based on the white paper’s steer for different student demographics and for more support for students from lower income backgrounds. This will require more agility. It will also require a closer and more strategic, data driven approach to the timing, delivery and use of such student funding.

    Universities will increasingly be expected to meet the needs of a more diverse and complex learner population, one that is typically older, more financially stretched, and balancing work, family, caring responsibilities, and study. While the student body is evolving at pace, and there are encouraging signs of greater flexibility and adaptability across the sector, as highlighted in The Shape of Student Financial Support in 2025, there is also clear recognition that more progress is needed.

    In our work with universities (designed to strengthen the effective delivery and impact of student financial support) we refer to this sea-change in funding as enabling both more optionality (for the funders) and greater agency (for the beneficiaries). Too much of the sector’s current model still assumes the profile and rhythms of the traditional 18-year-old school leaver. Policy momentum is pushing us firmly beyond this, and institutions will need to rethink not just how much financial support they provide, but how, when and in what form it is provided, and crucially, who it is designed for.

    A new student majority

    Commuter students, part-time learners, those studying while working full-time, and individuals returning to education later in life are no longer outliers. They are becoming a significant and growing segment of the student population, and the white paper’s direction of travel signals that this growth will continue.

    These learners typically have different cost profiles, different pressures, and different expectations around support. Rent and food costs matter, of course, but so do childcare, caring responsibilities, travel to placements and campus, and the financial instability that often comes with shift-based or zero-hours work. Their support needs do not fall neatly around term dates.

    A modern student support system must reflect that reality.

    Beyond the “once-a-year” mindset

    One of the strongest messages emerging from our work with universities is that timing of support is as critical as the pound value that support. Students increasingly need support that works with the grain of real life, not against it. That means agility: funds that can be released quickly during a crisis; support that can be drawn down in a way that helps with budgeting; and options that reflect different lifestyles, responsibilities, and individuals preferences around how they manage their finances.

    For mature learners, the notion of a predictable “start of term” pressure point is often irrelevant. Housing, employment and family commitments create fluctuating financial pinch-points throughout the year. A forward-looking and agile hardship and support model must therefore allow universities to intervene dynamically, reacting to student need rather than institutional calendar.

    Across the more than 40 institutions we partner with, we see a growing shift toward more targeted, purpose-led and flexible support. Although institutions are facing significant financial constraints, they are adapting, often rapidly, to ensure funding reaches the right students in a way that genuinely makes a difference.

    We are seeing:

    • A move toward more tailored interventions, with universities reshaping bursaries and hardship schemes around specific learner profiles, including mature and commuter students.
    • Increased use of real-time payment mechanisms, enabling rapid support when a financial shock threatens continuation.
    • Greater use of data to understand how different types of students use support, and what interventions are most likely to prevent financial distress, disengagement or withdrawal.
    • Growing recognition that support must be designed around lived experience, responsive to trends and feedback, not just institutional tradition.

    This shift is encouraging, but the system as a whole is not yet optimised for the demographic change that the White Paper anticipates.

    Where policy meets practice: recommendations for a modernised support model

    To prepare for a more diverse learner population, the sector will need to reimagine its support architecture. From our work with universities and our ongoing analysis of funding patterns, several recommendations emerge:

    We should build support models around life-stage, not simply level of study. Mature and non-traditional learners experience costs and vulnerabilities that differ from the archetypal school-leaver. Support schemes should explicitly recognise this, particularly around childcare, travel, digital access, and household stability.

    There is a need to shift from fixed-cycle payments to flexible, real-time support. Financial crises rarely occur conveniently during scheduled disbursement windows. Universities need mechanisms that allow for rapid, secure, and dignified disbursement of funds whenever needed.

    It is time to explore hybrid support models that blend cash, credit and vouchers. Different pressures require different tools. Cash support is essential in alleviating hardship. Credit and voucher mechanisms can help direct funds toward participation, learning, and targeting food poverty. Mature learners often benefit from a mixture of both.

    We must make data central to decision-making. With financial pressure mounting across the sector, institutions must allocate limited resources with precision. Data on spending patterns, draw-down behaviour and student feedback can inform more effective and equitable holistic support strategies.

    We should co-design support with the students who rely on it. There is no substitute for listening to those living the experience. Mature and non-traditional students frequently report that support systems “aren’t designed for people like me”. Bringing their voices into design and evaluation will be vital.

    A financial support system fit for the future

    The white paper’s direction is clear: widening participation will no longer be defined simply by access for school leavers from underrepresented groups. It will increasingly require a system capable of supporting learners from every life stage, people retraining, upskilling, switching careers, balancing caring responsibilities, or returning to education for the first time in decades.

    This transition will require institutions to be flexible, evidence-led, and prepared to evolve their traditional models of support. Our latest annual report provides one lens on how this evolution is taking place, and where further change is needed. But the wider policy moment demands more than reflection: it demands intentional redesign.

    If universities are to deliver opportunity for all, as the white paper sets out, they will need financial support systems that reflect the real, diverse, year-round lives of today’s and tomorrow’s students. Flexibility is no longer a helpful addition; it is the foundation on which effective, equitable support must be built.

    Source link

  • The latest sector-wide financial sustainability assessment from the Office for Students

    The latest sector-wide financial sustainability assessment from the Office for Students

    As the higher education sector in England gets deeper into the metaphorical financial woods, the frequency of OfS updates on the sector’s financial position increases apace.

    Today’s financial sustainability bulletin constitutes an update to the regulator’s formal annual assessment of sector financial sustainability published in May 2025. The update takes account of the latest recruitment data and any policy changes that could affect the sector’s financial outlook that would not have been taken into account at the point that providers submitted their financial returns to OfS ahead of the May report.

    Recruitment headlines

    At sector level, UK and international recruitment trends for autumn 2025 entry have shown growth by 3.1 per cent and 6.3 per cent respectively. But this is still lower than the aggregate sector forecasts of 4.1 per cent and 8.6 per cent, which OfS estimates could result in a total sector wide net loss of £437.8m lower than forecast tuition fee income. “Optimism bias” in financial forecasting might have been dialled back in recent years following stiff warnings from OfS, but these figures suggest it’s still very much a factor.

    Growth has also been uneven across the sector, with large research intensive institutions increasing UK undergraduate numbers at a startling 9.9 per cent in 2025 (despite apparently collectively forecasting a modest decline of 1.7 per cent), and pretty much everyone else coming in lower than forecast or taking a hit. Medium-sized institutions win a hat tip for producing the most accurate prediction in UK undergraduate growth – actual growth of 2.3 per cent compared to projected growth of 2.7 per cent.

    The picture shifts slightly when it comes to international recruitment, where larger research-intensives have issued 3.3 per cent fewer Confirmations of Acceptance of Studies (CAS) against a forecasted 6.6 per cent increase, largely driven by reduction in visas issued to students from China. Smaller and specialist institutions by contrast seem to have enjoyed growth well beyond forecast. The individual institutional picture will, of course, vary even more – and it’s worth adding that the data is not perfect, as not every student applies through UCAS.

    Modelling the impact

    OfS has factored in all of the recruitment data it has, and added in new policy announcements, including estimation of the impact of the indexation of undergraduate tuition fees, and increases to employers National Insurance contributions, but not the international levy because nobody knows when that is happening or how it will be calculated. It has then applied its model to providers’ financial outlook.

    The headline makes for sombre reading – across all categories of provider OfS is predicting that if no action were taken, the numbers of providers operating in deficit in 2025–26 would rise from 96 to 124, representing on increase from 35 per cent of the sector to 45 per cent.

    Contrary to the impression given by UK undergraduate recruitment headlines, the negative impact isn’t concentrated in any one part of the sector. OfS modelling suggests that ten larger research-intensive institutions could tip into deficit in 2025–26, up from five that were already forecasting themselves to be in that position. The only category of provider where OfS estimates indicate fewer providers in deficit than forecast is large teaching-intensives.

    The 30 days net liquidity is the number you need to keep an eye on because running out of cash would be much more of a problem than running a deficit for institutional survival. OfS modelling suggests that the numbers reporting net liquidity of under 30 days could rise from 41 to 45 in 2025–26, with overall numbers concentrated in the smaller and specialist/specialist creative groups.

    What it all means

    Before everyone presses the panic button, it’s really important to be aware, as OfS points out, that providers will be well aware of their own recruitment data and the impact on their bottom line, and will have taken what action they can to reduce in-year costs, though nobody should underestimate the ongoing toll those actions will have taken on staff and students.

    Longer term, as always, the outlook appears sunnier, but that’s based on some ongoing optimism in financial forecasting. If, as seems to keep happening, some of that optimism turns out to be misplaced, then the financial struggles of the sector are far from over.

    Against this backdrop, the question remains less about who might collapse in a heap and more about how to manage longer term strategic change to adapt providers’ business models to the environment that higher education providers are operating in. Though government has announced that it wants providers to coordinate, specialise and collaborate, while the sector continues to battle heavy financial weather those aspirations will be difficult to realise, however desirable they might be in principle.

    Source link

  • Texas Gov. Orders Financial Investigation of Texas Southern

    Texas Gov. Orders Financial Investigation of Texas Southern

    An auditor said that staffing vacancies at Texas Southern University had contributed to financial mismanagement.

    Istockphoto.com/michelmond

    Texas governor Greg Abbott and lieutenant governor Dan Patrick have ordered an investigation of Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution in Houston, after a state audit found evidence of financial mismanagement and bookkeeping inconsistencies, The Texas Tribune reported. Patrick also said he would look into freezing state funding to the institution.

    The audit found 700 invoices, totaling $280 million, linked to contracts that were listed as expired in the institution’s database. Another 800 invoices, worth $160 million, were dated before the purchases were approved, the Tribune reported. TSU was also months late in turning in financial statements for the past two fiscal years.

    The auditor attributed the errors to staffing vacancies, poor asset oversight and weak contracting processes.

    TSU officials said they had already fixed some of the issues outlined in the audit.

    “Texas Southern University has cooperated with the state auditor in evaluating our processes,” officials said in a statement. “The University enacted corrective measures prior to the release of the interim report, including a new procurement system. We look forward to gaining clarity and continuing to work with the state auditor to ensure transparency for all taxpayers of Texas.”

    Source link

  • Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

    Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

    Author:
    Peter Gray

    Published:

    Over the weekend, HEPI published a blog on reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women and a blog on the future of languages in multilingual Britain.

    Today’s blog was kindly authored by Peter Gray, CEO and Chairman of the JS Group.

    If universities are to adapt to the latest skills-led demands of the Government (and to match the stated national future industry priorities), they will need to look well beyond their course and employability provision at many other aspects of the student experience.

    One such key area is in the connection between student financial support and employability opportunities. It is important that those students from lower-income or more restricted backgrounds are financially equipped and able to take advantage of, for example, off-campus experiences with employers to ensure they aren’t denied these frontline opportunities for skills development and for making connections. While there are many charities working to structure and access these opportunities, it is the funding itself to enable this full participation that needs particular attention.

    That’s why I can foresee a new demand for universities to steer more and more bursaries, scholarships, and special-case funding streams towards helping students with skills-based experiences. It is a trend that is already growing – as JS Group’s latest annual analysis of patterns in student financial support demonstrates. In recent years, we’ve assessed the overall use of £296 million of such support provided to 584,000 students.

    In the last 12 months (the 2024/25 academic year), we have looked at the use of this funding by students, the formats of payments and the timelines of when funding is being used and applied. This data (from our Aspire platform) is immensely important as it can draw on real-time and (student) user-based experiences to ensure universities have the evidence to make future decisions about their student support investments.

    A notable trend this year – which is in part explained by an expansion of participating universities providing data and the use of funding from Turing and Taith public funding schemes – is in how more and more students are using cash-based support from their institution to address the costs of work placements or associated travel, or to recover such expenses.

    Expenses claims are up by more than six per cent, use of placement funds is up three per cent and travel is up by more than one per cent. Our indicators show more action in these areas alongside continued support for accommodation, household bills, groceries and course-based resources.

    Our feedback survey of students as funding beneficiaries also shows the value that they place on funding for levelling-up (in terms of their ability to participate in opportunities) and for strengthening their perception of value and belonging with their university.

    If, as we expect, there will now be a national policy drive to steer more embedded work-related and skills-driven activities as part of the higher education experience, then it makes sense for universities to reassess how they are using their financial support beyond cost-of-living and cost-of-learning applications.

    Source link

  • State Financial Aid Increased 12% in 2023–24

    State Financial Aid Increased 12% in 2023–24

    Most funding from the states was in the form of grants.

    PamelaJoeMcFarlane/iStockphoto.com

    States awarded $18.6 billion in aid to students during the 2023–24 academic year, a 12 percent increase from the previous academic year, according to the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs’ annual report.

    “The robust 12% increase from the prior year is further evidence that states understand the importance of postsecondary education and of ensuring every student is able to acquire the 21st century skills needed to drive their state’s economy,” said NASSGAP president Elizabeth McCloud in a news release.

    About 86 percent of that funding came in the form of grants—three-quarters of which were need-based. More than two-thirds of all need-based grants came from eight states—California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

    The remaining $2.5 billion of nongrant aid included loans, loan assumptions, conditional grants, work-study and tuition waivers, with tuition waivers comprising 44 percent of nongrant aid.

    Source link

  • Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

    Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

    Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.

    John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

    The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits. 

    By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.

    “It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”

    Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.

    According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote. 

    “Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote. 

    The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard. 

    The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday. 

    “Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”

    The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.

    As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S. 

    Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does. 

    During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.

    But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.

    The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said. 

    “To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”

    Source link

  • UC employees, unions sue Trump administration over ‘financial coercion’

    UC employees, unions sue Trump administration over ‘financial coercion’

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    A coalition of University of California faculty groups and employee unions sued the Trump administration Tuesday over the federal government’s efforts to “exert ideological control” over the system and its 10 institutions. 

    Over the past three months, the federal government has cut off at least $584 million in grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, sought $1 billion from the system to restore that funding and delivered a wide-ranging list of ultimatums that would dramatically reshape the state’s university system through political interference. 

    In their lawsuit, the coalition — which represented tens of thousands of faculty, staff and students within the university system — called the cuts unconstitutional and an “arbitrary, ideologically driven, and unlawful use of financial coercion” that threatened U.S. higher education and advancement.

    “The administration has made clear its intention to commandeer this public university system and to purge from its campuses viewpoints with which the President and his administration disagree,” the lawsuit said.

    “Campaign to control universities”

    President Donald Trump began laying the groundwork for “his administration’s coordinated attack on academic freedom and free speech and campaign to control universities” shortly after retaking office in January, the lawsuit alleged.

    Since then, Trump has put dozens of colleges on notice at once via civil rights investigations and targeted specific, often well-known institutions — such as Harvard University and Columbia University — that have invoked his ire.

    “Rather than acknowledging educational institutions like the UC as the assets to this nation that they are, the Trump administration views them as barriers to the President’s agenda of ideological dominance,” the lawsuit said.

    At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice ruled that UCLA had violated civil rights law by failing to adequately protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment. A week later, the federal government suspended $584 million in grants to UCLA over the allegations.

    Tuesday’s lawsuit alleged DOJ picked and chose from university documents to make the argument it had wanted to from the start. For example, the agency relied heavily on an October report from UCLA that found antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on its campus. But DOJ entirely failed to address the improvements UCLA had undertaken since — a factor similar to one cited by a federal judge when she struck down the Trump administration’s $2.2 billion funding freeze at Harvard earlier this month.

    DOJ also did not explain what connection the specific research funding cuts had to alleged antisemitism, forcing all university employees to prepare “for the possibility of significant and immediate termination of funding,” the lawsuit said.

    The University of California, one of the largest research systems in the country, derives a third of its annual operating budget — $17 billion — from federal funding, according to the lawsuit.

    The Trump administration has also unlawfully disregarded the process by which the government can terminate or withhold federal funds, the lawsuit argued.

    Addressing the cuts on Aug. 6, system President James Milliken said they did “nothing to address antisemitism,” but said the University of California would enter into negotiations with the Trump administration to have the funding restored.

    In the event of a major loss of federal funding, the system would need, at minimum, between $4 million and $5 billion just to survive, Milliken told state lawmakers this month.

    Dramatic and expensive ultimatums

    On Aug. 8, two days after Milliken announced the forthcoming negotiations, the system received an unprecedented list of wide-ranging demands from the Trump administration tying its federal funding to total compliance, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs cited a copy of the list, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, which the University of California has not made public.

    The letter would require UCLA to install a “resolution monitor” — appointed with final approval by the Trump administration — who would hold significant authority over campus affairs.

    UCLA would also be forced to provide the federal government regular access to “a wide variety of records” on faculty, staff and students, “as deemed necessary by the resolution monitor.”

    “The only exception is for attorney-client privilege, not for speech, association, or privacy purposes,” the lawsuit said.

    Source link

  • Cost-smart campuses: Building financial resilience through strategic buying

    Cost-smart campuses: Building financial resilience through strategic buying

    Across higher ed, the financial squeeze is tightening. Between shrinking enrollment and uncertain funding, colleges and universities are scrambling to deliver value with far less cash. Every purchase, from lab beakers to toner cartridges, now faces intense scrutiny. After all, one way to uncover excess spending is to identify blind spots and inefficiencies in how organizations buy.

    That drive for savings puts procurement teams squarely in the hot seat. Seven in ten procurement leaders rank cost management as their most critical capability today and for the years ahead, according to Economist Impact. Yet decentralized purchasing, patchwork systems, and limited spend visibility continue to drain institutional resources.

    Savvy institutions are flipping that script, moving from reactive penny-pinching to proactive value creation by consolidating spend, leveraging supplier partnerships, and centralizing purchasing oversight.

    From reactive buying to proactive value creation

    Financial uncertainty now dominates the higher ed landscape. To navigate it successfully, universities must shift from tactical price checks to total-value management, leveraging lessons from other industries that have successfully implemented AI-powered automations to boost efficiencies and cut costs, University Business reports. It’s the difference between playing defense and offense—both matter, but one drives wins.

    This strategic transformation requires three foundational moves: gaining real-time visibility into campuswide spending patterns, establishing centralized oversight without bureaucratic friction, and building supplier relationships that deliver value beyond the initial purchase price.

    “Reducing spend is important, but increasing value matters more,” shares Rosie Grigsby, senior sales manager for higher education at Amazon Business. “When you’re looking at things only from a price perspective, you’re missing out on other value aspects like quality, lifecycle, support, training, and more,” she explains. “When thinking about total value, I’m thinking about how a supplier is enhancing student experiences while giving university employees time back through efficiencies.”

    To make that possible, procurement leaders would be wise to prioritize the visibility problem: You can’t optimize what you can’t see. Gaining visibility into campuswide spending starts with breaking down the silos that keep procurement teams in the dark.

    Visibility and control: Centralizing spend without adding bureaucracy

    Imagine navigating unfamiliar terrain with a GPS that only shows you one street at a time. When departments buy in silos, institutions lose their ability to see the bigger picture, eroding spend leverage, killing negotiating power, and complicating compliance. Each isolated purchase decision chips away at potential savings and strategic control.

    Consider the cascading impact: With fragmented purchasing, universities could be paying different prices for the same product across departments, missing significant volume discounts, and discovering duplicate software licenses only during audits. Worse yet, audits could reveal policy violations that were invisible until it was too late. 

    Unsurprisingly, research by the IBM Center for the Business of Government shows that centralized procurement correlates with higher savings, efficiencies, and compliance. Even so, many procurement leaders struggle with organization-wide visibility. 

    The solution isn’t building a bureaucratic fortress around every purchase decision. Rather, modern procurement solutions maintain centralized control while giving end users the flexibility they need, eliminating the process bottlenecks that drive departments to work around procurement entirely.

    Solutions could be lying dormant in tools you already own. “Universities often underutilize e-procurement systems and automations they already have licenses for,” Grigsby notes. “Electronic catalogs, automated approval workflows, single sign-ons (SSOs), analytics—tools like these cut time from sourcing to receiving while enhancing compliance and reducing errors.” What once took days of spreadsheet analysis can now happen automatically, freeing teams to focus on strategy, not data entry.

    Building strategic supplier relationships

    Too many institutions treat suppliers as vendors, not partners. Transactional supplier relationships are short-term and price-focused: you buy something, and you’re done. Strategic supplier relationships, on the other hand, are ongoing partnerships built on trust and alignment with the university’s mission.

    “Without strong supplier relationships, you’re missing out on partners who help you anticipate needs, drive innovation, and uncover creative solutions,” Grigsby explains. “True partners embrace your university’s mission as their own and work to maintain or increase service levels through collaborative, strategic sourcing.”

    These partnerships prove especially valuable during budget crunches, Grigsby adds, citing the ongoing collaboration between procurement teams and Amazon Business account executives as an example. “Our higher ed clients often leverage the know-how, experience, and ideas we’ve gleaned from working with their peers across the nation,” she explains. “Whether they’re pursuing sustainability goals or 100% automation in procurement, we help them identify ideal partners or find solutions that have worked well for other institutions facing similar challenges.”

    Real results at Emory University

    Emory University faced the classic procurement challenge: fragmented purchasing and spend visibility. By adopting a centralized purchasing approach through Amazon Business, procurement leaders reclaimed oversight, optimized workflows for users across the organization, and uncovered dramatic savings.

    Guided buying and integrated search features brought the intuitive Amazon Business shopping experience right into Emory’s purchasing system. These integrations drove adherence to procurement policies while giving users flexibility to conduct price comparisons and complete purchases directly within Emory’s existing system. Plus, buyers enjoyed savings through Business Prime shipping and tax exemption on eligible purchases. 

    The payoff was significant, averaging thousands of dollars in savings each month. “Pretty hefty savings,” as one administrator put it.

    Roadmap to resilience

    As institutions rework purchasing strategies to boost value and savings, how can procurement teams position themselves as problem solvers instead of gatekeepers? Grigsby recommends three essential practices:

    • Proactive collaboration: Low collaboration with non-procurement buyers increases rogue buying risk, yet leaders currently rate collaboration as the least essential skill in procurement, according to Economist Impact. “When procurement reaches out to departments early to understand their pain points, especially in times of budget stress, they can engage, identify alternatives, and help internal customers reach their goals without being a blocker,” Grigsby advises.
    • Streamlined processes: Efficient procurement automates mundane tasks like recurring orders, approval workflows, and spend analysis while centralizing oversight. “Customers want to source, reconcile, and receive products easily so they can focus on mission-critical tasks,” Grigsby points out.
    • Broadcast successes: Procurement wins often go unnoticed despite their organizational impact. Share those wins—whether through newsletters, internal communications channels, or dashboards showing how much departments saved—to foster trust and collaboration.

    Looking ahead, the financial pressures facing higher education make procurement transformation a necessity, not a luxury. Modern, cost-conscious procurement isn’t about saying no; it’s about finding better ways to say yes.

    ▷ Learn how Amazon Business can help accelerate your procurement goals: business.amazon.com/education

    Source link