全球智库信息集成服务系统

State System universities face significant challenges.

• Enrollment is likely to be reduced because youth population is projected to drop in most of Pennsylvania. Students are paying a greater share of costs because state appropriations are limited and have declined. Opportunities to change are hindered by state regulations, inflexible faculty labor relations, and governance that is reportedly bureaucratic and places politics above system needs.

Challenges will continue to affect universities and students.

• System enrollment has declined 13 percent between 2010 and 2016. As of 2016, 11 of the 14 State System universities are operating in deficit (although some of this effect may stem from 2015 changes in accounting rules for retiree pensions). Given the projected decline of the state's youth population, student costs could continue to rise, while services may continue to be curtailed or downsized.

Instead of university closures, there are five possible options for change.

• Several of these options could affect the missions of the universities, accessibility and costs for students, and the sovereign immunity that currently protects the State System from lawsuits.
• Several of these options could affect the missions of the universities, accessibility and costs for students, and the sovereign immunity that currently protects the State System from lawsuits. Option 1 is to keep the broad State System structure with improvements. It upgrades the existing system by modifying the governance structure to reallocate authority across the various system levels and freeing institutions from some state requirements.
• Option 2 makes the changes in Option 1 and also consolidates the current 14 universities into a smaller number — perhaps five to eight — by merging State System universities in each region of the state and including at least one fiscally viable university in each merger.
• Option 3 would eliminate the State System structure and convert the universities to state-related status. This option would be applied to the stronger universities or to weaker universities that could be merged with stronger ones prior to independence.
• Option 4 places the State System and all its institutions under the management of a large state-related university, building on their strong performance, possibly for a defined period of time such as ten years.
• Option 5 merges the State System universities into one or more of the state-related universities as branch campuses.

The Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, a committee of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, sponsored a RAND Corporation study to identify options that would improve the long-term sustainability and viability of the universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (State System) in the coming years. The State System was established in 1982 and is the largest provider of higher education in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Today, the State System faces considerable challenges that threaten the sustainability of its operations and the provision of accessible, affordable, and relevant educational programs to students. RAND researchers developed five alternatives to address sustainability: These options range from keeping the broad State System structure with a few improvements to merging the State System universities into one or more of the state-related universities as branch campuses.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Challenges Arising from External Factors

• Chapter Three

  Challenges Arising from the System

• Chapter Four

  Consequences of Internal and External Challenges for State System Universities and Students

• Chapter Five

  Options to Address Challenges

• Chapter Six

  Conclusion and Recommendations

• Appendix A

  Study Approach

• Appendix B

  Detailed Tables and Graphs

• Appendix C

  Response of the State System's Interim Chancellor