environmental scan
Post on 31-Dec-2015
65 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Scan
University of Illinois
Office for Planning and Budgeting3rd Edition, November 2007
Environmental Scan: Purpose and Process
Page 2
The purpose of an environmental scan is to support and inform the strategic planning process. A good environmental scan will help an organization understand and respond effectively to changes in their environments.1
• This environmental scan provides information on demographics, higher education, economic and budgetary matters, research, technology, and economic development, the political landscape, and the related implications, opportunities, and challenges for the University of Illinois.
• The University of Illinois’ initial environmental scan was developed in March 2005 to set a context for the University’s strategic planning framework. Subsequent editions of the environmental scan have updated source data for many of the charts and graphs and added elements of increasing importance (e.g., information has also been added on the topics of global competitiveness in higher education participation, completion, and attainment, energy, online education, and the impacts of the aging population).
• Because the external environment in which the University of Illinois operates is continually changing, the environmental scan will be updated and refined periodically to reflect the most recent available information on key opportunities and challenges facing the University.
• Feedback on the usefulness of the environmental scan and suggestions for improvement are welcome and encouraged. Please direct any comments or questions to the University Office for Planning and Budgeting (UOPB) via e-mail to envscan@uillinois.edu.
1 Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. 2004.
Key Highlights: Opportunities
• Creatively addressing the educational, health care, and other needs of an increasingly diverse Illinois population
• Developing a niche within the rapidly developing market for online education both nationally and globally
• Responding to the growing global demand for individuals with training in the sciences and engineering
• Enhancing capacity in energy research and development (both traditional and renewable sources)
• Developing new and enhanced University revenue sources from the growing demand for higher education and R&D activities
• Effectively responding to the increased interest of state and federal policymakers in the public accountability of colleges and universities
Page 3
Key Highlights: Challenges
• Maintaining and enhancing access to the University for minority, low income, and first-generation students
• Recruiting and retaining high quality faculty and staff given increasing competition and looming retirements
• Ensuring the highest level of academic quality in the face of state and federal funding constraints
• Maintaining the University’s physical environment absent new infusions of state capital funding
• Expanding the University’s R&D capacity given federal funding constraints
• Balancing interest in enhancing higher education’s public accountability with legitimate privacy concerns within the University community (students, faculty, and staff)
Page 4
Table of Contents
Page 5
• Demographics…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7– U.S. Population Projections, 2000-2020 8– Illinois Population Ages 18-24 Race/Ethnicity 9– University of Illinois Statewide Presence 10– Undergraduate and Graduate/Professional Enrollments by Race/Ethnic Higher Education 11– Minority Enrollment Data by Campus 12– University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by Race/Ethnicity 13– University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by Gender 14– University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by Race/Ethnicity 15– University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by Gender 16– University of Illinois SURS Participants, Tenure-System Faculty Age Distribution 17– University of Illinois SURS Participants, Non-Tenure Faculty and Staff by Age Distribution 18– Health Care and Aging 19– Implications for the University of Illinois 20
• Higher Education……………………………………………………………………………………………. 21– International Comparisons: Higher Education Attainment 22– International Comparisons: Higher Education Participation and Completion 23– Projected Percentage Change in Number of High-School Graduates from 2002 to 2009 24– University of Illinois Degrees Conferred 25– Percentage of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Gender 26– Mean Income by Quintile in Illinois 27– Faculty Salary Comparisons, IBHE Peers 28– University of Illinois Faculty and Enrollments 29– Enrollment in Online Courses 30-31– Implications for the University of Illinois 32
Table of Contents
• Economy and Budget………………………………………………………………………………………... 33– Economic Value of Higher Education 34– U.S. Economic Indicators 35-36– State of Illinois Economic and Fiscal Indicators 37– State of Illinois General Fund Appropriations by Sector FY 2007 38– State of Illinois Financial Liabilities 39– Illinois Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012 40– University of Illinois Share of State Tax Appropriations FY 1980 to FY 2007 41– University of Illinois Budget by Source of Funds 42– University of Illinois All Sources of Duns FY 1990 – FY 2007 43– The Center: The Top American Research Universities 44– Big Ten University and Foundation Endowments 45– Public Higher Education Capital Appropriation History FY 1999 to FY 2007 46– Implications for the University of Illinois 47
• Research, Technology, and Economic Development………………………………………………………. 48– Trends in Federal R&D Funding 49– Total R&D Expenditures of Carnegie Research I Institutions, FY 2004 50– University of Illinois Rank among AAU Institutions on Selected Quality Indicators 51– International Comparison: Production of Undergraduate Degrees in Natural Sciences & Engineering 52– International Comparison: Doctoral Degrees Granted in Natural Sciences & Engineering (1993-2003) 53– University of Illinois Technology Transfer: U.S. Patents 54– University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Performance Index 55– Energy Costs and Use 56– Renewable Energy 57– Implications for the University of Illinois 58
• Political Landscape…………………………………………………………………………………………... 59– Illinois House and Senate Memberships 60– Illinoisans’ Support for State Higher Education Spending Increases 61– Implications for the University of Illinois 62
• Sources………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 63
Page 6
Demographics
Page 7
U.S. Population Projections, 2000-2020
* Includes Native Americans, Aleutians, and persons of two or more races.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2003.
0
20
40
60
80
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
White Asian Black Hispanic Other*
Year
Millions
Ages 18-35, by Race-Ethnic Group
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Female Male
Year
Millions
Ages 18-35, by Gender
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
18 - 35 36 - 49 50 & over
Year
Millions
All Race-Ethnic Groups, by Age Group
Projected Total Number of High-School Graduates
*Actual Figure
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
3,186,940
3,042,003
3,107,931
2,983,477
2,958,908
2,952536
2,894,429*
3,195,259
Page 8
Illinois Population Ages 18-24 Race/Ethnicity
2000
Hispanic13.3%
Black17.2%
Asian3.5%
American Indian0.2%
White65.8%
2020
Hispanic18.7%
Black17.8%
American Indian0.2%
Asian5.1%
White58.2%
N = 1.200M N = 1.358M
Page 9
UIUC
UIC
UIS
University of Illinois Statewide Presence
On-Campus Headcount Enrollment by County, Fall 2007
University of Illinois Campus Locations
Additional Facilities
• Regional Medical Colleges– Rockford– Peoria– Urbana-Champaign
• Illinois has 102 Counties– U of I Extension serves all
102 Counties– Police Training Institute
FY 2005 students from 81 Illinois Counties
– Fire Service InstituteFY 2005 students from 99 Illinois Counties
– FY 2005 State-wide Programming Course Locations in 16 Illinois Counties
– Online Instruction accessible from all 102 Illinois Counties
– Regional Agricultural Stations
– 4-H Camps
Page 10
Undergraduate Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2007
Graduate/Professional Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2007
Page 11
UIC
UIC
UIUC
UIS
UIS
UIUC
Hispanic16.4%
White & Other50.1%
Black8.7%
Asian23.2%
International1.6%
Hispanic7.1%
White & Other54.2%
Black8.0%
Asian14.1%
International16.6%
Hispanic2.8%
White & Other79.6%
Black13.2
Asian3.2%
International1.2%
Hispanic1.0%
White & Other73.4%
Black8.4% Asian
1.8%
International15.1%
Hispanic6.9%
White & Other68.0%
Black6.7%
Asian12.8%
International5.6%
Hispanic5.6%
White & Other61.0%
Black5.7%
Asian10.1%
International17.6%
UIC
UIS
UIUC
Minority Enrollment Data Fall 1996 through Fall 2006
Page 12
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Black Hispanic
Undergraduate
8%
10%
12%
14%
Black Hispanic
Campus Total
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Black Hispanic
Undergraduate
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Black Hispanic
Campus Total
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Black Hispanic
Undergraduate
4%
5%
6%
7%
Black Hispanic
Campus Total
University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by Race/EthnicityFall 2005 – All Fund Sources
Page 13
BlackWhite Other*AsianHispanic
4% 5%
15%
69%
8%
Chicago Campus
N = 1,923
7%3%
10%
77%
4%
Springfield Campus
N = 196
4% 3%
10%
75%
8%
Urbana-Champaign Campus
N = 2,258
University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by GenderFall 2005 – All Fund Sources
Page 14
Male Female
38%
62%
Chicago Campus
N = 1,923
44%
56%
Springfield Campus
N = 196
31%
69%
Urbana-Champaign Campus
N = 2,258
University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by Race and EthnicityFall 2005 – All Fund Sources
Page 15
30%
13%
11%
44%
2%
Chicago Campus
N = 8,229
4% 2%1%
92%
1%
Springfield Campus
N = 451
9% 2%
3%
83%
2%
Urbana-Champaign Campus
N = 7,712
11%
4%
3%
81%
1%
University Administration
N = 1,181
* Includes Native Americans, Aleutians, persons of two or more races, and non-resident aliens.
BlackWhite Other*AsianHispanic
University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by GenderFall 2005 – All Fund Sources
Page 16
Male Female
67%
33%
Chicago Campus
N = 8,229
59%
41%
Springfield Campus
N = 451
54%
46%
Urbana-Champaign Campus
N = 7,712
65%
35%
University Administration
N = 1,181
University of Illinois SURS Participants, Tenure-System Faculty Age DistributionOctober 10, 2006
FTE
Chicago Campus w/ UIH
FTE
Springfield Campus
FTE
Urbana-Champaign Campus w/ CES
Page 17
University of Illinois SURS Participants, Non-Tenure Faculty and Staff Age DistributionOctober 10, 2006
Page 18
FTE
Chicago Campus w/ UIH
FTE
Springfield Campus
FTE
Urbana-Champaign Campus w/ CES
FTE
University Administration
Health Care Spending % of GDP in the USA1975 - 2020
Total Spending on Health Care Per Person2005
Health Care Spending % of GDP2005
Page 19
Number of Americans Over 60 by Decade
ProjectedSource: Bureau of Census
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
110,000,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
ProjectedProjectedSource: Bureau of Census
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
110,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
110,000,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20501970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Source: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/18/35044277.xls
7%
9%
11%
13%
15%
17%
19%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Projected
~77 million “baby boomers” start hitting 60 years of age in 2006
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Korea
Poland
Mex
ico
Slov
ak R
epubli
c
Czech
Rep
ublic
Finlan
dIr
eland
Turke
yLux
embo
urg
Japa
nHun
gary
Spain
United K
ingd
omIta
lyNew
Zea
land
Denm
ark
Norway
Swed
enNeth
erlan
dsAustr
alia
Icela
ndCan
ada
Greec
eAustr
iaPor
tuga
lBelg
iumGer
many
Franc
eSw
itzer
land
United St
ates
Source: OECD www.oecd.org, Health Data Statistics October 2007. *Private and public. †Adjusted for purchasing-power parity.
Total* spending on health per person at PPP†, 2005.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
Turkey
Mex
icoPola
nd
Slovak
Rep
ublicK
orea
Hun
gary
Czech
Rep
ublic
Portu
gal
Spain
New Z
ealand
Finla
ndJap
anIta
ly
United K
ingd
omSwed
enIr
eland
Gre
ece
Denm
arkG
erman
yNeth
erla
ndsCana
daFra
nceAustr
alia
Belgium
Icela
ndAustr
iaSwitz
erland
Norway
Luxem
bourg
United S
tate
s
Source: OECD www.oecd.org, Health Data Statistics October 2007. *Private and public. †Adjusted for purchasing-power parity.
Total* spending on health per person at PPP†, 2005.
DemographicsImplications for the University of Illinois
• Illinois will experience slight population growth in coming years.• As with the rest of the U.S., Illinois’ population will become more
diverse and the Hispanic population will grow faster than any other segment.
• The proportion of African-American students at UIC and UIUC grew slightly after a period of decline, while the proportion of Hispanic students has generally grown at all three campuses in recent years. Pressure from University stakeholders to enhance diversity among students, staff, and faculty will continue.
• The over 50 population will grow rapidly. This aging population will put increasing pressure on social services and health care and may view higher education as less of a priority in the future.
• A significant proportion of the University’s tenure/tenure-track faculty are age 55 or over creating the potential for large numbers of retirements in the near future.
Page 20
Higher Education
Page 21
International Comparison: Higher Education Attainment
Page 22Source: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data represent the percentage of adults with an associate’s degree or higher in 2005.
7.7%
11.6%
12.2%
12.8%
12.9%
15.0%
15.2%
18.2%
19.0%
19.9%
20.1%
20.3%
24.1%
25.9%
26.2%
27.5%
28.3%
29.5%
30.0%
30.6%
32.2%
33.1%
33.9%
34.4%
35.5%
36.2%
38.4%
39.4%
40.1%
49.5%
Turkey
Czech Republic
Mexico
Italy
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Austria
Hungary
Poland
Greece
Switzerland
Germany
Luxembourg
France
Korea
Netherlands
Spain
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Ireland
Belgium
Australia
Iceland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Japan
Finland
United States
Canada
Ages 25-64
10.4%
14.6%
16.9%
16.9%
19.2%
20.6%
22.1%
22.7%
24.2%
25.0%
28.2%
30.9%
34.2%
36.0%
36.6%
38.7%
41.9%
42.4%
42.4%
42.8%
43.5%
44.4%
44.6%
45.3%
45.5%
47.1%
48.4%
51.1%
56.6%
60.3%
Turkey
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Mexico
Italy
Austria
Germany
Hungary
Portugal
Switzerland
Greece
Poland
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Iceland
Sweden
Australia
United States
France
Denmark
Spain
Ireland
Belgium
Finland
Norway
Korea
Japan
Canada
Ages 25-34
Page 23
International Comparison: Higher Education Participation and Completion
Source: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data are for 2003.
11%
13%
18%
19%
20%
20%
23%
23%
24%
24%
25%
25%
27%
29%
30%
31%
31%
31%
34%
35%
35%
37%
37%
43%
48%
Turkey
Mexico
Switzerland
Iceland
Denmark
Slovak Republic
Germany
Austria
Sweden
Czech Republic
Norway
Portugal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Spain
Australia
France
Hungary
Poland
United States
Ireland
Finland
Belgium
Greece
Korea
College Participation
Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18 to 24) Currently Enrolled in College
12%
13%
13%
13%
13%
14%
14%
15%
16%
16%
17%
17%
17%
18%
18%
18%
19%
20%
21%
21%
23%
23%
23%
25%
26%
Italy
Finland
Germany
Austria
Turkey
Norway
Mexico
Czech Republic
Hungary
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
United States
Korea
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Iceland
France
Ireland
New Zealand
Australia
Denmark
Switzerland
Portugal
Japan
College Completion
Total Number of Degrees/Certificates Completed per 100 Students Enrolled
United States
Gain of more than 20%
Gain of 11% to 20%
Gain of 1% to 10%
Gain or loss of less than 1%
Loss of 1% to 9%
Loss of 10% or more
Source: WICHE
United States
Gain of more than 20%
Gain of 11% to 20%
Gain of 1% to 10%
Gain or loss of less than 1%
Loss of 1% to 9%
Loss of 10% or more
Source: WICHE
Projected Percentage Change in Numberof High-School Graduates from 2002 to 2009
University of Illinois On-Campus HeadcountEnrollment by State Fall 2006
Page 24
154
56,337
21
12
24
16
107270
127
852
12162
10133
77
26
93
280
282
199
275
82
68
2914
32
22
345
135
147
11
12
53
87
45
250
3
6
58
3064
24
22
13
551
55
101
75
United States(AK & HI Inset)
400 to 56,337 (3)300 to 400 (4)200 to 300 (5)100 to 200 (10)
0 to 100 (28)
Illinois – 56,337 (82%)Other U.S. – 5,185 (7%)
District of Columbia - 20U.S. Territories - 50U. S. Residents with Foreign Address – 221
Non-Resident Aliens - 7,287 (11%)
University of IllinoisDegrees Conferred – FY 2007
UIUC Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Race/EthnicityFY 2007
UIS Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Race/EthnicityFY 2007
UIC Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Race/EthnicityFY 2007
Page 25
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
UIC UIS UIUC
Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Professional
5,919
1,045
10,659
Black6.9%
Hispanic13.3%
Asian25.9%
White48.0%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
0.3%
Other5.7%
Black Hispanic Asian White American Indian/Alaskan Native Other
3,286
Black, 9.6%
Hispanic, 2.1%
Asian, 2.3%
White, 80.2%
American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.3%
Other, 5.4%
Black Hispanic Asian White American Indian/Alaskan Native Other
612
Black6.1%
Hispanic5.8%
Asian12.1%
White70.7%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
0.2%Other5.0%
Black Hispanic Asian White American Indian/Alaskan Native Other
7,040
Percentage of FY 2007 Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Gender
Page 26
Male 46%
Female54%
UIC
Male 39%
Female61%
UIS
Male 52%
Female48%
UIUC
Male 43%
Female57%
National
FY 2005
Mean Income by Quintile in Illinois1982 to 2006
Increase in Median Income for Families by Quintile1982 to 2006
Percent of Undergraduates Who Receive MAP Awards by RaceFY 2006
Page 27
$0
$40,000
$80,000
$120,000
$160,000
$200,000
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
In Current Dollars
Lowest Income
Highest Income
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Black Hispanic Asian White
UIC - 5,899 Awards UIS - 760 Awards UIUC - 6,422 Awards
Full-time Instructional Faculty Salary Rank, Fall 2007UIC
Full-time Instructional Faculty Salary Rank, Fall 2007UIUC
Full-time Instructional Faculty Salary Rank, Fall 2007UIS
Research I UniversitiesFull-Time Instructional Faculty Average Salaries
FY 1982 to FY 2007
Faculty Salary Comparisons, IBHE Peers
Page 28
ConstantDollars
($1,000s)*
Source: American Association of University Professors; Bureau of Labor Statistics.
$7,700Gap in1982
$25,300Gap in2007
* Constant (FY 2007) dollars calculated using CPI-U (not seasonally adjusted).
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07
Privates
Publics
Year
1st 21st$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140 UIUC
19th$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120UIC
12th1st 22nd
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100 UIS
14th10th1st
FTE On – Campus Enrollment per FTE Tenure – System FacultyFall 1983 to Fall 2006
FTE On-Campus Enrollment per FTE Tenure-System FacultyFall 1983 to Fall 2006
UIC
FTE On-Campus Enrollment per FTE Tenure-System FacultyFall 1996 to Fall 2006
UIS
FTE On-Campus Enrollment per FTE Tenure-System FacultyFall 1983 to Fall 2006
UIUC
University of Illinois Faculty and Enrollments
Page 29
14.4 14.414.1
13.8 14
14.7
15.3
16.416
16.7 16.616.3 16.3 16.3 16.5
17.217.5 17.6
18
19.2 19.2 19.3 19.5 19.5
10
12
14
16
18
20
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Stu
den
ts p
er F
acu
lty
Year
15.7
16.2
15.114.9
12.7
13.7
14.5 14.5
15.515.7
14.4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Stu
den
ts p
er F
acu
lty
Year
16.8 16.817.1
17.5 17.3 17.4 17.217.6
18.018.4
19.0 19.219.6 19.5 19.7
20.2 20.420.8 20.6 20.8
21.522.0 22.2 22.2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Stu
den
ts p
er F
acu
lty
YearYear
Stu
den
ts p
er F
acu
lty
Enrollment in Online CoursesNational EnrollmentsFall 2002 to Fall 2006
At the University of IllinoisFall 1999 to Fall 2006
At Illinois Colleges and UniversitiesFall 1999 to Fall 2006
Illinois vs. University of IllinoisFY 2006
Page 30
UIC48.4%
UIS31.4%
UIUC20.2%
University of Illinois
10,201 Enrollments
Other Illinois Institutions
92.0%
UIC3.9%
UIS2.5%
UIUC1.7%
Illinois
127,383 Enrollments
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006
Source: www.Sloan-c.org : “Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning,” October 2007
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006Source: www.ivc.illinois.edu/pubs/enrollment.html - Fall Internet enrollment.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006
Source: www.ivc.illinois.edu/pubs/enrollment.html - Fall Internet enrollment.
Page 31
Online Learning Trends• Online enrollments have continued to grow at rates far in excess of the total higher education student
population, albeit at slower rates than for previous years.– The Almost 3.5 million students were taking at least one online course during the fall 2006 term; a nearly 10
percent increase over the number reported the previous year.– The 9.7 percent growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the 1.5 percent growth of the overall higher
education student population. – Nearly twenty percent of all U.S. higher education students were taking at least one online course in the fall of
2006.
• Improving student access is the most often cited objective for online courses and programs. Cost reduction is not seen as important.
• Approximately one-third of higher education institutions account for three-quarters of all online enrolments. Future growth will come predominately from these and similar institutions as they add new programs and grow existing ones.– Much of the past growth in online enrollments has been fueled by new institutions entering the online learning
arena. This transition is now nearing its end; most institutions that plan to offer online education are already doing so.
– Future growth in online enrollments will most likely come from those institutions that are currently the most engaged; they enroll the most online learning students and have the highest expectations for growth.
Source: Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. The Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp
Higher EducationImplications for the University of Illinois
• U.S. competitiveness in higher education participation, completion, and attainment, while still strong, is slipping relative to other developed and developing nations.
• The college age population will grow nationwide, but this growth will vary greatly among regions. The West, Southwest, and Southeast will experience growth that will exceed capacity in public higher education, although in general the Midwest will not.
• A larger percentage of women are attending higher education than men and the gap is increasing.
• Competition from proprietary institutions and other non-traditional educational providers in the marketplace for students (both nationally and internationally) has greatly increased in recent years.
• Growth in faculty compensation at private institutions has surpassed public universities, and the intense competition for faculty will continue.
• Relatively flat incomes at the lower income brackets in recent years will have implications for tuition and financial aid policies particularly with regard to promoting access for low income and first-generation students.
• Rapid technological innovation has led to a need for lifelong learning that will allow individuals to continuously adapt and update skills. On-line instruction has grown rapidly in the last 10 years as it has gained mainstream acceptance due to increasing internet access and innovations in instructional technologies.
Page 32
Economy and Budget
Page 33
The Lifetime Expected Value of a Bachelor’s Degreeis Rising Compared to a High School Diploma
Median Income by Educational Achievement(Males)
CUMULATIVE LIFETIME EXPECTED EARNINGS(Dollars in Millions)
Males Females
Value of Higher Education
Page 34
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Bachelor's Premium High School
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
24 34 44 54 64 74
Doctorate
Professional
Master’s
Bachelor’s
Associate’sH.S. Graduate
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
24 34 44 54 64 74
DoctorateProfessional
Master’sBachelor’s
Associate’s
H.S. Graduate
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
$1.6
Men Women
1980 2006
Dol
lars
in M
illio
ns
Cumulative Inflation Increases
Target Federal Funds Rate
Gross Domestic Product Annual Change
U.S. Economic Indicators
Page 35
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
-15%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
105%
120%
135%
150%
165%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
GDP
HEPI
CPI
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.0%
6.5%
7.0%
7.5%
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Office of Management and Budget
Increase in U.S. Health Insurance Premiums Compared to Other Indicators 1988 - 2006
U.S. Economic Indicators
Page 36
Source: U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, WSJ 6/10/04.
$33.00
$22.50 $22.10
$20.20 $19.40$18.60
$8.40
$5.20
$2.70
$0.90
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Germany U.S. France Japan Canada U.K. SouthKorea
Taiwan Mexico China
Source: U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, WSJ 6/10/04.
$33.00
$22.50 $22.10
$20.20 $19.40$18.60
$8.40
$5.20
$2.70
$0.90
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Germany U.S. France Japan Canada U.K. SouthKorea
Taiwan Mexico China
Relative Labor Costs Among Major Auto-Producing Nations(in dollars per hour)
12.0%
18.0%
14.0%
8.5%
0.8%
5.3%
8.2%
10.9%
12.9%
13.9%
11.2%
9.2%
7.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Health Insurance Premiums Workers' Earnings Overall Inflation
Source: The Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Benefits 2006 Annual Survey.
Cumulative Growth FY 1990 – FY 2008
University of IllinoisFlash Index Data
State of IllinoisState-Supported Principal Outstanding
End-of-Year FY 1996-2007(Dollars in Billions)
State of IllinoisGeneral Obligation Debt Service
Principal and Interest
State of Illinois Economic & Fiscal Indicators
Page 37
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008*
Interest Principal
$621.7$674.7 $686.2 $690.8 $717.2
$790.5$851.5
$973.4
$1,595.0
* The FY 2007 and FY 2008 debt service are GOMB Budget estimates.
$1,412.4
$1,670.8$1,649.4
$1,753.7
-15%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
105%
120%
135%
150%
165%GDP
State GRF
Public Univ. GRF
CPI
153.6%
128.8%
FY02 to FY08 exclude $45 million in payments to CMS from Universities for Health InsuranceSource: Illinois State Budgets (FY08 is based on the Governor’s Proposed Budget)
65.1%
26.7%
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
Source: IGPA, U of I
Values above 100 represents Economic Growth
Growth GrowthNo Growth
State of IllinoisGeneral Fund Appropriations by Sector – FY 2008
State Tax AppropriationsChanges by Agency
State Tax AppropriationsHigher Education vs. Elementary/Secondary Education
Page 38
Human Services20.4%
Elementary/Secondary
31.4%
Healthcare and Family
Services29.7%
Higher Education
7.9%
Public Safety5.5%
Other5.1%
$28.4 Billion
State By Sector
Source: Illinois State Budget, FY 2008 as introduced.
Individual Income Tax
30.2%
Corporate Income Tax
5.5%
Sales Tax24.0%
Federal Aid16.3%
Public Utility3.5%
Lottery & Gaming
4.6%
Gross Receipts
8.3%
Other Sources
7.6%
Sources of General Revenue Fund
-45%
-30%
-15%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%In Constant 2007 Dollars (CPI)
Human Services
Elem/Sec
Higher Educ.
All Other
State Average
64.9%
38.6%
-17.6%-25.3%
62.9%
FY02 - FY08 exclude $45 M from Higher Education for Health Insurance payment to CMS.
-35%
-15%
5%
25%
45%
65%In Constant 2007 Dollars (CPI)
Elem/Sec
Higher Educ.-17.6%
62.9%
FY02 - FY08 exclude $45 M from Higher Education for Health Insurance payment to CMS.
Illinois Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012
Page 39
2.8%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
3.0%
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
3.5%
3.7%
Computer Syst. Design & Serv.
Internet, Web & Data Processing
Outpatient Care Centers
Electronics & Appliance Stores
Health Practitioners Offices
Child Day Care Serv.
Internet Publish. & Broadcast.
Ambulatory Health Care Serv.
Mgmt., Sci. & Tech. Serv.
Home Health Serv.
Fastest Growing Industries
Avg. ann. change
3.3%
3.3%
3.4%
3.5%
3.6%
3.8%
3.8%
4.0%
4.1%
4.5%
Haz. Mat. Removal Worker
Phys. Therap. Asst.
Veterinary Technician
Home Health Aides
Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.
Physician Asst.
Fitness Train./Aerobics Instr.
Social & Human Serv. Asst.
Network & Data Comm. Analyst
Medical Asst.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Avg. ann. change
Source: Illinois Department of Employment Security
3.6%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
4.4%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
5.3%
Child Day Care Serv.
Internet, Web & Data Processing
Water, Sewage & Other Systems
Ambulatory Health Care Serv.
Indiv., Family, Voc. & Rehab. Serv.
Employment Serv.
Computer Syst. Design & Serv.
Community Elder & Resid. Care
Mgmt., Sci. & Tech. Serv.
Software Publishing
Fastest Growing Industries
Avg. ann. change
4.5%
4.5%
4.6%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
5.7%
5.9%
Phys. Therap. Asst.
Software Engineer, Systems
Software Engineer, Applications
Phys. Therapist Aide
Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.
Home Health Aide
Social & Human Serv. Asst.
Physician Asst.
Network & Data Comm. Analyst
Medical Asst.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Avg. ann. change
U.S. Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012
2.8%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
3.0%
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
3.5%
3.7%
Computer Syst. Design & Serv.
Internet, Web & Data Processing
Outpatient Care Centers
Electronics & Appliance Stores
Health Practitioners Offices
Child Day Care Serv.
Internet Publish. & Broadcast.
Ambulatory Health Care Serv.
Mgmt., Sci. & Tech. Serv.
Home Health Serv.
Fastest Growing Industries
Avg. ann. change
3.3%
3.3%
3.4%
3.5%
3.6%
3.8%
3.8%
4.0%
4.1%
4.5%
Haz. Mat. Removal Worker
Phys. Therap. Asst.
Veterinary Technician
Home Health Aides
Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.
Physician Asst.
Fitness Train./Aerobics Instr.
Social & Human Serv. Asst.
Network & Data Comm. Analyst
Medical Asst.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Avg. ann. change
3.3%
3.3%
3.4%
3.5%
3.6%
3.8%
3.8%
4.0%
4.1%
4.5%
Haz. Mat. Removal Worker
Phys. Therap. Asst.
Veterinary Technician
Home Health Aides
Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.
Physician Asst.
Fitness Train./Aerobics Instr.
Social & Human Serv. Asst.
Network & Data Comm. Analyst
Medical Asst.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Avg. ann. change
Source: Illinois Department of Employment Security
3.6%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
4.4%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
5.3%
Child Day Care Serv.
Internet, Web & Data Processing
Water, Sewage & Other Systems
Ambulatory Health Care Serv.
Indiv., Family, Voc. & Rehab. Serv.
Employment Serv.
Computer Syst. Design & Serv.
Community Elder & Resid. Care
Mgmt., Sci. & Tech. Serv.
Software Publishing
Fastest Growing Industries
Avg. ann. change
3.6%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
4.4%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
5.3%
Child Day Care Serv.
Internet, Web & Data Processing
Water, Sewage & Other Systems
Ambulatory Health Care Serv.
Indiv., Family, Voc. & Rehab. Serv.
Employment Serv.
Computer Syst. Design & Serv.
Community Elder & Resid. Care
Mgmt., Sci. & Tech. Serv.
Software Publishing
Fastest Growing Industries
Avg. ann. change
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics4.5%
4.5%
4.6%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
5.7%
5.9%
Phys. Therap. Asst.
Software Engineer, Systems
Software Engineer, Applications
Phys. Therapist Aide
Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.
Home Health Aide
Social & Human Serv. Asst.
Physician Asst.
Network & Data Comm. Analyst
Medical Asst.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Avg. ann. change
4.5%
4.5%
4.6%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
5.7%
5.9%
Phys. Therap. Asst.
Software Engineer, Systems
Software Engineer, Applications
Phys. Therapist Aide
Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.
Home Health Aide
Social & Human Serv. Asst.
Physician Asst.
Network & Data Comm. Analyst
Medical Asst.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Avg. ann. change
U.S. Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012
University of IllinoisPayments on Behalf
Average Compounded Annual IncreasesFY 1990 – FY 2008
State of IllinoisGeneral Fund Appropriation – FY 2008
University of IllinoisShare of State Tax Appropriations
FY 1980 to FY 2008
Page 40
SURS0.2%
Community Colleges14.1%
Other Public Universities
27.9%
Student Aid19.5%
All Other6.8%
U of I31.5%
Sources: IBHE tables for Higher Education - final budget as signed by Governor.
Note: Health Insurance redirection of $45 million has been moved from Public Universities to All Other.
$2.2 Billion
7.5%
1.3%
3.3%2.8%
3.6%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
GeneralUndergraduate
Tuition Rate
StateAppropriations
(GRF)
StateAppropriations +Undergraduate
Tuition Revenue
CPI DirectAppropriations +
Payments on BehalfCPI: Consumer Price Index, BLS
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
FY02 – FY08 excludes $45 million reduction to Universities for Health Insurance
2.4%$696.6M
$1,291.1M
$594.5M
RetirementFringe
BenefitsHealth
Insurance Total % Change1990 $39,573.5 $29,300.1 $68,873.61991 34,823.7 39,976.4 74,800.1 8.6%1992 34,388.5 39,151.6 73,540.1 -1.7%1993 31,730.3 40,936.2 72,666.5 -1.2%1994 32,266.0 65,845.6 98,111.6 35.0%1995 35,069.2 62,447.3 97,516.5 -0.6%1996 49,543.7 90,252.7 139,796.4 43.4%1997 63,881.4 95,138.7 159,020.1 13.8%1998 81,625.3 103,342.2 184,967.5 16.3%1999 87,425.1 112,200.3 199,625.4 7.9%2000 90,606.5 127,261.8 217,868.3 9.1%2001 94,267.3 154,420.1 248,687.4 14.1%2002 99,014.4 157,024.2 24,893.2 280,931.8 13.0%2003 112,980.6 169,170.4 24,893.2 307,044.2 9.3%2004 727,269.3 210,084.4 24,893.2 962,246.9 213.4%2005 114,279.8 232,952.6 24,893.2 372,125.6 -61.3%2006 70,462.8 257,464.0 24,893.2 352,820.0 -5.2%2007 107,981.7 268,675.0 24,893.2 401,549.9 13.8%
CompoundedAnnual Rate 6.1% 13.9% 10.9%
Note: 2004 includes proceeds from bond sale.
University of IllinoisBudget by Source of Funds
FY 1980, FY 2008 and Projected FY 2018
Page 41
State Taxes18.6%
Payments on Behalf
11.3%
Tuition15.4%
Grants/ Contracts
26.8%
AFMFA0.5%
Hospital/ Medical14.0%
Auxiliaries13.4%
Tuition21.4%AFMFA
0.7%
Auxiliaries10.9%
Grants/ Contracts
24.9%
Payments on Behalf
15.3%
State Taxes11.0%
Hospital/ Medical15.8%
Payments on Behalf
4.6%
Tuition5.7%
Hospital/Medical10.9%
State Taxes44.5%
Grants/ Contracts
20.4%
Auxiliaries13.9%
FY 1980 Projected FY 2018
$641.7 Million $7,499.5 Million
FY 2008
$3,899.8 MillionBased on FY 1996-2008 Trends.
University of IllinoisAll Source of Funds FY 1990 – FY 2008
(Dollars in Millions)
University of IllinoisAll Source of Funds as a % of Total Budget
FY 1990 – FY 2008
University of IllinoisCumulative GrowthFY 1990 – FY 2008
State & Tuition Pay for Instructional FunctionExpenditures by Function FY 2006
Page 42
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
GRF/EAF
Income Fund
Institutional Funds
Self Supporting
Gifts/Grants/Contracts
Hospital
Payments on Behalf
Sources: Budget Summary for Operations, state payments on behalf, and RAMP. Waivers excluded.
FY90-FY95 state funds adjusted to include UIS. GRF for FY02 – FY08 exclude $24.9 million for Health Insurance, Payments on Behalf adjusted to include the $24.9 million.
AFMFA
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08Sources: Budget Summary for Operations, state payments on behalf, and RAMP. Waivers excluded.
FY90-FY95 state funds adjusted to include UIS. GRF for FY02 - FY08 exclude $24.9 million for Health Insurance, Payments on Behalf adjusted to include the $24.9 million.
State Funds
Income Fund
Institutional Funds
Hospital
Gifts/Grants/Contracts
Self Supporting
Payments on Behalf
AFMFA
0%
75%
150%
225%
300%
375%
450%
525%
600%
FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
State Funds
Income Fund
Institutional Funds
Hospital
Gifts/Grants/Contracts
Self Supporting
Payments on Behalf
Sources: Budget Summary for Operations, state payments on behalf, and RAMP. Waivers excluded.
FY90-FY95 state funds adjusted to include UIS. GRF for FY02 – FY08 exclude $24.9 million for Health Insurance, Payments on Behalf adjusted to include the $24.9 million.
$501.4
$188.4$143.1 $132.0
$72.7$46.7 $44.3 $37.7 $53.4
$17.6
$40.6
$74.9
$18.6
$484.2
$254.3
$509.4
$45.0
$70.3
$239.2
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Non-State
State & Tuition
(Dollars in Millions)
Total Endowment-Equivalent Adjusted for Student FTE EnrollmentUniversities with More Than $20 Million in Federal Research in Rank Order
The Center: The Top American Research Universities(August 2002)
2005 Adjusted Total Endowment-EquivalentBased on The Center’s MethodologyUIUC – Peer Institutions (in billions)
2005 Adjusted Total Endowment-EquivalentBased on The Center’s Methodology
UIC – IBHE Peer Institutions (in billions)
Page 43
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
MichiganStanford
Minnesota
Berkeley
Ohio StateNorthwestern
Texas
Iowa
UIUC
UIC
Chicago
Arizona State
ColoradoOregon State
Private (N=39)
Public (N=80)
Rank Among All 119 Research Universities
Adj
uste
d T
otal
End
owm
ent-
Equ
ival
ent (
in B
illio
ns)
12 Private
8 Public
12 Private
8 Public
12 Private
8 Public
12 Private
8 Public
12 Private
8 Public
12 Private
8 Public
Harvard off-scale at $31.1 Billion• An Annual Report from The Lombardi Program on Measuring
University Performance• Intended to assess the relative economic strength of research
universities• Evaluated universities based on the market value of their
endowments and an endowment equivalent calculation for other revenue streams– Endowment equivalent is the amount of endowment that would be
required to generate the revenue stream (assuming a 4.5% growth)– Revenue streams included annual giving, tuition and fees, and state
appropriations– Adjusted for size based on student enrollment– Used FY 1999 data
• Public institutions can compete with private institutions because of the significant state support received
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
Yale
Mich
igan
Pennsy
lvania
Wisc
onsin NYU
UCLA
Colum
biaUSC
Berkele
y
Wash
ingt
on
Johns H
opkin
s
North C
arolin
a
Northew
ester
nDuke
Chicago
UIUC
Texas
Wash
ingt
on U
niv.
UCSD
Brown
Roches
ter
Endow Asset Market Value Endow-Equiv Annual Giving
Endow-Equiv State Appn Endow-Equiv Tuition and Fees
UIUC
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
Florid
a
UC Davis
Mich
igan Sta
te
Mary
land, C
olleg
e Park
Arizon
a
Georg
ia
Temple
Utah
ASU
VPI and Sta
te
Massa
chuset
ts
Delawar
e
UC Irvin
e
Florid
a Sta
teUIC
UC Santa B
arbara
Wayn
e Stat
e
Hawaii
Virgin
ia, C
ommonwea
th
Orego
n
Verm
ont
UC Riv
ersid
e
Endow Asset Market Value Endow-Equiv Annual Giving
Endow-Equiv State Appn Endow-Equiv Tuition and Fees
UIC
2005 annual giving data was not available for Wayne State. We used 2001 data as a proxy for 2004.
Big Ten University and Foundation Endowments(Dollars in Billions)
Percentage Growth from 1995-2006FY 2006
Annual Change in Endowment SpendingBig Ten University and Foundation Endowments
Page 44
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$62006 2005 1995 1985
Source: NACUBO Endowment Study FY 2006.
$5.7
$5.1
$2.2$2.0
$1.7$1.5
$1.3 $1.3 $1.3$1.0
$0.8
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
Source: NACUBO Endowment Study FY 2006.
0%75%
150%225%300%375%450%525%600%675%750%825%900%975%
Source: NACUBO Endowment Study FY 2006.
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
12.2 %Compounded Annual Rate
Public Higher Education Capital Appropriation HistoryFY 1999 to FY 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Total Debt by Type Total Debt by Campus
U of I Capital AppropriationsFY 1995 to FY 2007(Dollars in Millions)
U of I SIU Other Public ICCB Other Total
FY 1999 37,310.10$ 14,274.70$ 33,877.40$ 52,041.90$ 1,310.00$ 138,814.10$
FY 2000 80,685.60 29,938.50 99,474.90 96,189.30 11,000.00 317,288.30
FY 2001 46,821.90 42,573.80 52,231.50 63,532.50 415.00 205,574.70
FY 2002 165,949.40 22,730.00 104,957.00 75,736.40 2,000.00 371,372.80
FY 2003 126,335.00 30,072.10 45,311.30 80,679.20 13,943.80 296,341.40
FY 2004 12,735.00 5,752.50 34,137.40 59,107.60 - 111,732.50
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
NO APPROPRIATIONS
NO APPROPRIATIONS
NO APPROPRIATIONS
Page 45
$21.1
$80.7
$30.5
$0.0
$27.8
$46.8
$165.9
$140.1
$12.7
$41.8
$0.0$0.0 $0.0$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Repair & Renovation Regular Capital Designated Projects
$21.1
$80.7
$30.5
$0.0
$27.8
$46.8
$165.9
$140.1
$12.7
$41.8
$0.0$0.0 $0.0$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Repair & Renovation Regular Capital Designated ProjectsRepair & Renovation Regular Capital Designated Projects
Dollars in Millions
$387.0 $385.5 $422.2
$692.4
$803.1
$1,018.1
$1,098.7$1,131.0
$1,202.2
$1,322.2
$1,543.5
Dollars in Millions
$387.0 $385.5 $422.2
$692.4
$803.1
$1,018.1
$1,098.7$1,131.0
$1,202.2
$1,322.2
$1,543.5
Economy and BudgetImplications for the University of Illinois
• The economic value of higher education to the individual – especially those with post-baccalaureate degrees – continues to grow.
• The U.S. economy will continue to grow, but at a slower rate. Health care costs continue to grow at a more rapid rate than general inflation and earnings which has an impact on both the national economy and governmental spending at all levels.
• The state’s fiscal situation, while somewhat improved, faces continued challenges in the coming years. Health care and pension obligation costs are expected to continue rising rapidly and will likely outpace any state revenue growth realized resulting in continued constraints on “discretionary spending” in the state budget (e.g., higher education).
• The state has greatly increased its debt burden in the last four years creating a reluctance among state policymakers to fund additional capital improvements. At the same time, the University must increasingly rely on internal sources for funding capital projects which in turn has contributed to increased debt service levels.
• The University has become more reliant on multiple revenue streams and state policymakers may interpret this trend as meaning the University can more easily absorb reductions or at least flat funding in the general appropriation.
Page 46
Research, Technology, and Economic Development
Page 47
Federal R&D Budget Proposal(Dollars in Millions)
Federal Outlays for R&DNational Science Foundation
Annual Percentage Change
Federal Outlays for R&DAll Agencies
Annual Percentage Change
Federal Outlays for R&DNational Institute of Health
Annual Percentage Change
Page 48
Trends in Federal R&D Funding
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 % ChangeActual Estimate Estimate 2007-2008
73,043$ 75,481$ 72,935$ -3.4%26,695 26,974 27,580 2.2%7,529 9,174 10,114 10.2%1,156 1,241 1,409 13.5%3,707 3,943 3,894 -1.2%1,779 1,795 1,734 -3.4%8,886 9,533 9,345 -2.0%
122,795$ 128,141$ 127,011$ -0.9%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Total Research and Development Expenditures of Carnegie Research I Institutions, FY 2005
Page 50
Quartile 1 Quartile 2
Rank Institution Total Rank Institution Total
1 Johns Hopkins University $1,443,792 24 University of Pittsburgh, All Campuses $510,943
2 University of Michigan, All Campuses $808,887 25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $499,711
3 University of Wisconsin-Madison $798,099 26 Harvard University $447,196
4 University of California-Los Angeles $785,625 27 University of Southern California $445,036
5 University of California-San Francisco $754,444 28 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $441,033
6 University of California-San Diego $721,035 29 Yale University $431,618
7 Stanford University $714,897 30 Georgia Institute of Technology, All Campuses $425,386
8 University of Washington - Seattle $707,519 31 University of Texas at Austin $410,981
9 University of Pennsylvania $654,982 32 Northwestern Univ $387,242
10 Duke University $630,752 33 Purdue University, All Campuses $364,986
11 Pennsylvania State U, All Campuses $625,764 34 Louisiana State Univ, All Campuses $356,828
12 Ohio State University, All Campuses $608,923 35 Vanderbilt University $350,433
13 Cornell University, All Campuses $606,804 36 University of Rochester $345,337
14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology $580,742 37 University of Maryland at College Park $338,648
15 University of California-Berkeley $554,551 38 University of Iowa $334,144
16 Texas A&M University, All Campuses $552,897 39 Michigan State University $333,735
17 University of Minnesota, All Campuses $548,873 40 Emory University $333,665
18 University of California-Davis $546,978 41 University of Nebraska Central Admin Sys Off $333,126
19 Columbia University in the City of New York $535,424 42 Case Western Reserve University $323,618
20 Washington University $531,846 43 University of Alabama at Birmingham $318,536
21 University of Florida $530,734 44 University of Illinois at Chicago $318,279
22 University of Arizona $530,233 45 University of Georgia $316,806
23 University of Colorado, All Campuses $517,067 46 Rutgers the State Univ of NJ, All Campuses $309,531
Source: National Science Foundation
Note: Totals reported in thousands.
No. Doctorates Awarded
USDA Obligations
State/Local R & D Spending
Federal R & D Spending
No. Faculty Citations
No. Post doctorates
Urbana-Champaign Campus
Chicago Campus
University of Illinois Rank Among AAU Institutions on Selected Quality Indicators
Sources: National Science Foundation—USDA Obligations, State/Local and Federal R & D spending, No. Post doctorates; IPEDS—No. Doctorates; Thomson ISI—No. Faculty Citations.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06
Year
Rank(N = 61)
1
- Actual -
61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06
Year
Rank(N = 61)
1
- Per 100 Faculty -
61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06
Year
Rank(N = 61)
1
- Per 100 Faculty -
61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06
Year
Rank(N = 61)
1
- Actual -
61
Page 50
International Comparison: Production of Undergraduate Degrees in Natural Sciences and Engineering
Page 51
Note: Natural sciences include physical, biological, earth, atmospheric, ocean, agricultural, and computer sciences, and mathematics. Data include terminal undergraduate degrees only (e.g., bachelor’s degrees). Source: National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.
Number of Degrees Per 100 24-Year-Olds
0.7
1.8
1.9
2.2
3
5
5.7
7.7
11.8
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East
South America
Asia
All Regions
North/Central America
U.S.
Europe
Oceania (Australia, NZ)
International Comparison: Doctoral Degrees Granted in Natural Sciences and Engineering (1993 – 2003)
Page 52
Notes: Natural sciences include physical, biological, earth, atmospheric, ocean, agricultural, and computer sciences, and mathematics. Data for China ends in 2001. Data for all countries include degrees granted to both native and foreign national students.Source: National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
China Germany India Japan
Taiwan United Kingdom United States
University of Illinois Technology TransferU.S. Patents
Applications Filed FY 1999 – FY 2007
Issued FY 1999 – FY 2007
Technology Disclosures FY 1999 – FY 2007
Licenses & Options Executed FY 1999 – FY 2007
Page 53
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
UIC UIUC Total
0
50
100
150
200
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
UIC UIUC Total
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
UIC UIUC Total
0
50
100
150
200
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
UIC UIUC Total
University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Performance Index2000 - 2004
Rank Institution Name
1. Massachusetts Inst. Of Technology (MIT)
2. University of California System
3. California Institute of Technology
4. Stanford University
5. University of Florida
6. University of Minnesota
7. Brigham Young University
8. University of British Columbia
9. University of Michigan
10. New York University
11. Georgia Institute of Technology
12. University of Pennsylvania
13. University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana-Champaign
14. University of Utah
15. University of Southern California
16. Cornell Research Fdn., Inc.
17. University of Virginia Patent Fndtn.
18. Harvard University
19. University of California, San Francisco
20. North Carolina State University
21. SUNY Research Foundation
22. W.A.R.F./University of Wisconsin
23. McGill University
24. University of Washington/Wash. Res. Fdn.
25. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Overall Score
100.00
96.59
92.94
92.65
86.11
85.55
85.41
84.23
82.54
81.63
80.95
80.83
80.35
79.40
79.28
78.69
78.52
77.68
77.19
76.94
76.90
76.86
76.80
76.54
76.00
SOURCE: Milken Institute. Mind to Market: A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer and Commercialization. September 2006.
Brief Methodology Description
The purpose of this index is to show performance in the overall commercialization pipeline, including all research fields. The four criteria (outcome measures) that factor into the overall score are Patents Issued, Licenses Executed, Licensing Income, and Startups. A weighted average of the scores in these areas was computed. The Licensing Income and Startups scores received the highest weights since they are the most direct outcome measures. The overall scores have been re-benchmarked to 100 in order to form an index.
Page 54
Energy Use Projections
Page 55
Energy CostsCumulative Increases
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%Wellhead
Natural Gas
Anthracite
Texas WTI Crude
Source: Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov)
Total UI Utility Production Cost
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html
Renewable Energy’s Role in U.S. Supply Illinois’ Renewable Energy Presence
• Wind is the world’s fastest growing energy technology.
• Illinois currently has 6 ethanol plants in operation and 1 under construction.
• Illinois corn is used to produce 40% of the ethanol consumed in the U.S.
• Investment by the ethanol industry in Illinois exceeds $1 billion, generating 800 jobs in plant operations and 4,000 jobs in the industry-related service sector.
• ADM is the largest producer of fuel ethanol in the U.S.
• UI’s Renewable Energy Efforts:
– UIUC will build 3 wind turbines on the South Farms to provide electricity and serve as a demonstration to farmers (2007).
– UIUC’s new business building will be its first sustainable building, utilizing solar panels and other clean technologies.
Source: Illinois Corn Growers Association. http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/EthanolFact/ethanolfact.html Illinois’ Nuclear Presence
Page 56
OECD Renewable Energy Supply Growth
Figure 1: The Role of Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2006Source: Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004
Mill
ion
tons
of o
il eq
uiva
lent
(Mto
e)
Hydro Geothermal Solar, Tide, Wind, etc. Combustible Renewables and Waste
Source: OECD. http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=9713047/cl=19/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/05-01-05-g01.htm
• Illinois has 6 nuclear power plants, the largest family of nuclear facilities in the Nation.
• Over half of Illinois’ power is derived from nuclear.• Illinois’ nuclear generation capacity is greater than any other
state and all but seven world nations.
• Illinois is also home to the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab).
– Argonne has a long history of research and development in nuclear reactor technology.
– Fermilab conducts research on the frontier of high energy physics and related disciplines.
– University of Illinois faculty have a history of collaboration with researchers at both facilities.
Source: Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/illinois.htm
Research, Technology, & Economic DevelopmentImplications for the University of Illinois
• Federal R&D spending has slowed significantly in recent years and this pattern is likely to continue in the near term due to the slowing economy and other significant pressures on the federal budget (e.g., defense, homeland security).
• The bedrock of economic development through research and technology commercialization are top quality science and engineering faculty and students. Intense competition for science and faculty and students nationally and internationally coupled with stagnant state and federal funding will create serious challenges for major research institutions such at the University of Illinois as they attempt to maintain and enhance the quality and competitiveness of their research programs and technology commercialization endeavors.
• Land grant and other major research universities are increasingly expected to have technology transfer as a key part of their overall economic development mission. The University’s efforts in this area have grown considerably in recent years although many technical and competitive opportunities (and challenges) remain.
• Global interest in renewable energy sources will continue to grow in the future due to the overall increase in demand and continued concerns about the cost and supply of fossil fuels and other traditional energy sources. The University has an opportunity to take a leadership role in energy research and development given its proximity to traditional (e.g., coal, nuclear) and renewable (e.g., biomass, wind) energy sources and its fundamental strengths in science and engineering disciplines.
Page 57
Political Landscape
Page 58
Page 59
67
51
0 20 40 60 80
Republican
Democrat
Illinois House of Representatives Membership
37
22
0 10 20 30 40
Republican
Democrat
Illinois Senate Membership
Independent
Source: Illinois General Assembly Web site.
Source: Office of the Clerk, U.S House of Representatives Web site.
49
49
2
0 20 40 60
Republican
Democrat
U.S. Senate Membership
Independent
233
200
0 50 100 150 200 250
U.S. House of Representatives Membership
Republican
Democrat
* Excludes two vacancies.
Source: US Senate Statistics party division. history Web site.
Page 60
17%
22%
35%
35%
49%
59%
62%
57%
58%
63%
75%
20%
22%
36%
37%
52%
55%
58%
59%
60%
64%
67%
78%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Prisons
Building new roads
Repair roads
Job training for employed
Environment
Low-income families
Job training for unemployed
Public health
Higher education
Medical care
Financial Aid for IL College Students
Public schools K-12
2006
2005
Illinoisans’ Support for State Higher Education Spending Increases, 2005-2006
Source: Northern Illinois University, 2005 and 2007 Illinois Policy Survey
42%
47%
47%
56%
59%
66%
67%
67%
72%
73%
78%
80%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Public transportation
Protecting open spaces
Public safety
Preschool
Higher education
Job training
Economic development
Protecting air & water
Public health
TANF
Medical care
Public schools K-12
Illinoisans’ Willingness to Pay to Maintain Service Levels, 2004
Illinoisans’ Support for State Higher Education Spending Increases, 2006
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Southern IL
Central IL
Northern IL
Collar Counties
Suburban Cook
Chicago
StatewideRegion
48%
47%
57%
60%
62%
75%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
65 +
55 - 64
45 - 54
35 - 44
25 - 34
18 - 24Age
56%
61%
56%
60%
75%
64%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Over $150,000
$100,000 - $149,999
$56,000 - $99,999
$35,000 - $55,999
$21,000 - $34,999
Under $21,000Income
55%
69%
72%
88%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
White
Black
Asian
Other
Race
88%
57%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Ethnicity
58%
61%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Male
Female
Gender
60%
61%
59%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
High school or less
Some college
College graduateEducation
70%
33%
62%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Political party
Not Asked in 2005
Political LandscapeImplications for the University of Illinois
• Higher education issues have traditionally been state concerns, but Congress also has become much more interested in issues related to higher education’s affordability and public accountability.
• Growing public concern over affordability and recent legislation (e.g., “Truth in Tuition”) will make major increases in tuition challenging to achieve.
• Congress is also interested in an array of issues concerned with Homeland Security, which will have implications for privacy and student issues.
• The “P-16” education continuum has been truncated in the minds of many state policymakers and no longer includes higher education; there is, however, a significant focus on issues related to K-12 education and its financing.
• While the University enjoys a broad base of support within the General Assembly, the dominance of other issues facing the state legislature (e.g., health care, pensions, K-12 education) make it difficult to advance the University’s (or higher education’s) interests.
• There is growing interest at both the state and national levels in creating complex data systems that would provide policy makers and the general public with detailed information on student progress through the P-16 educational pipeline and beyond to the work place.
Page 61
SourcesExternal Sources• U.S. Bureau of the Census• WICHE Enrollment Projections 2006• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics• Post Secondary Education Opportunity Newsletter• National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators 2007• National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)• U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis• U.S. Office of Management and Budget• TIAA-CREF Institute Quarterly• Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission• Milken Institute• Governor’s State Budget Recommendations for FY 2008• House Democratic Budget Summit Document FY 2008• Northern Illinois University 2007 Illinois Policy Survey
U of I Reports• Profile of Students, Faculty and Staff by Race/Ethnic Group, Gender and Disability• Financial Aid Survey• University Office for Planning and Budgeting Employment Statistics• FY 2008 Budget Request for Operating and Capital Funds• Institute for Government and Public Affairs• Budget Summary for Operations• Annual Report Technology Commercialization Activities
Page 62
top related