Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure

1. Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure Louisiana Postsecondary Education Review Commission Aims McGuinness NCHEMS January 11, 2010

2. Outline • Understanding Different Governance Structures • Description of Differences • Illustration of Different State Structures • Common Issues Faced by States • Louisiana’s Structure • LA Structure • Key Dimensions of Louisiana Context • Principles to Guide Deliberations About Governance

3. State Coordination and Governance of Higher Education

4. No “Ideal” Model • Each State’s Structure Evolved in Response to Unique State Issues/Conditions • Modes of Provision (Public vs. Private) • History/Culture • Role of Government • Governor • State Legislature • Geo-Political Balance, Regional Disparities • Budgeting and Finance Policy and Process

5. No “Ideal” Model (Continued) • Not a Good Idea: Copying Another State’s Structure—Imposing on One State the Solutions to Another State’s Problems • But: • Alignment of Governance (Decision-Making Authority) with State Priorities Is Important • States Can Learn from the Experience of Other States in Addressing Common Problems/Issues

6. Coordination Versus Governance • Authority and Functions of Coordinating Boards Are Distinctly Different From Governing Boards of Institutions and System • Coordinating Boards: • Focus on Statewide Policy Leadership, Not on Governing/Managing Systems or Individual Institutions • Do Not Govern Institutions (e.g. Make Decisions Regarding Appointment of System and Institutional Presidents or Faculty and Other Personnel Issues) • In Louisiana terminology: • Coordinating Board: Board of Regents • Governing Boards: Management Boards

7. Comparative Perspective • 24 States are Consolidated Governing Board States: • All Public Institutions Governed by One or More Statewide Governing Boards • No Statewide Coordinating Board (with significant authority) • 23 States (including Louisiana) are Coordinating Board/Agency States • Statewide Coordinating Board/Agency (Regulatory or Advisory) • Two or More System or Institutional Governing Boards • Tradition of Decentralized Governance • 1 State (Pennsylvania) has State Agency with Limited Authority • 2 States (Michigan and Vermont) have No Statewide Entity

8. Illustrations of Differences and Complexity of State Higher Education Structures Of Necessity, the Following Illustrations Do Not Reflect the Nuances of Each State’s Structure

9. Key to Symbols Governing Board Planning or Regulatory Agency Coordinating Board 2-yr Campus University CC or Tech College

10. Governing Board States

11. Iowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon State-Level Agency or Governing Board State-Level Governing Board Two or More Universities (Research Universities and Comprehensive Universities) Community Colleges Explanation: Two separate state-level boards/agencies are responsible for all public institutions, one for universities and other for community or technical colleges. No state-level higher education planning or regulatory agency between boards and Governor and Legislature. Board for community or technical colleges may be either a state-level governing board (North Carolina) or a coordinating/regulatory board for locally governed colleges (Iowa and Oregon).

12. Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, DC, and Puerto Rico State-Level Governing Board 2-year Campuses/ Community Colleges Two or More Universities Explanation: All public institutions are governed by a single statewide board. Two-year campuses may include two-year primarily transfer campuses and/or community or technical colleges.

13. Georgia and Wisconsin State-Level Governing Board State-Level Governing Board 2-Year Colleges Universities Technical Colleges Explanation: Two separate boards govern public institutions, one board for the research university and other university campuses as well as 2-year (primarily transfer) colleges, and the other board for technical colleges.

14. Coordinating Board States

15. Kentucky, Virginia and Washington State State-Level Coordinating Board Institution-Level Governing Boards for Each University State-level Coordinating or Governing Board Community Colleges Several Universities (Research Universities and Comprehensive Universities) Explanation: Each public university has a governing board. State board for community colleges either governs the colleges or coordinates locally governed community colleges. Coordinating boards plan and coordinate the whole system. Note: Kentucky and Virginia community college boards are a statewide governing boards whereas the Washington State community college board is a coordinating board for locally governed colleges.

16. California and Connecticut Coordinating Board State-Level Coordinating or Governing Board State-Level Governing Board State-Level Governing Board Research University (Multi- Campus) Community Colleges Universities Explanation: Public institutions are organized under three state-level boards, one for research universities, one for comprehensive state universities, and the third a state-level governing board or a coordinating board for locally governed community colleges. Coordinating board has responsibility for planning and coordinating the system.

17. Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina (Texas) State-Level Coordinating Board State-Level Coordinating or Governing Board One or More Multi-Campus Governing Boards Institution-Level Governing Boards for Several Universities Community Colleges or Tech Colleges Two or More Universities Several Universities Explanation: Complex system of institutional governance including some multi-campus systems and some institutions with individual governing boards. State-Level board is responsible for coordinating the whole system. Note: In Texas, there is no state-level coordinating entity for locally governed community colleges

18. Tennessee Coordinating Board State-Level Governing Board State-Level Governing Board CC and Technology Centers Multi-Campus University Universities Explanation: State-Level Coordinating Board and two separate state-level governing boards, one for universities, and the other for universities, community colleges and technical institutions.

19. Minnesota State-Level Governing Board State-Level Governing Board Service Agency Linked to Governor’s Office Community and Tech Colleges Multi-Campus University Universities Explanation: Two separate state-level boards are responsible for all public institutions.. Planning/service agency has no coordinating authority related to governing boards.

20. Massachusetts State-Level Governing/Coordinating Board State-Level Governing Board Community Colleges Multi-Campus University System Colleges Explanation: Two separate boards govern public institutions, one board for the research university and other university campuses, and the other board for the state colleges and community colleges. This second board also has responsibility for planning and coordinating all public higher education.

21. Formal Versus InformalAuthority State Board’s “Power” Depends Less on Formal Authority Than on: • Support from Governor and State Legislature for Board Policy Decisions/Recommendations • Budget/Resource Allocation • Changes in Institutional Mission • High-Cost Professional Programs • New Campuses • Merger/Consolidation /Closure of Programs or Campuses Continued

22. Formal Versus InformalAuthority (Continued) • Board and Executive Leadership: • Reputation for Objectivity, Fairness, and Timeliness of Analysis and Advice to Legislative and Executive Branches • Capacity to Gain Trust and Respect (but Not Always Agreement) of the State Political and Institutional Leaders • Institutional/System Leaders Who Recognize and Support Effective Coordination To: • Support System/Institutional Governance • Address State and Regional Policy Issues that Cannot Be Addressed within Systems/Institutions or Only Through Voluntary Coordination

23. Trends in Governance • State Policy Leadership Focused on Public Agenda • the Needs of the Population • Quality of Life • Economy • Decentralized Institutional Governance and Deregulation Balanced by Accountability for Performance/Outcomes Linked to Public Agenda • Financing Policies that: • Use Incentives for Performance and Response to Public Agenda/Public Priorities • Align State Appropriations, Tuition Policy and Student Aid Policy

24. Trends (Continued) • Only a Few States Have Centralized or Consolidated Public Higher Education Systems in Past 35 Years (when systems in North Carolina and Wisconsin were established). Exceptions: • Florida: Massive Decentralization and Recentralization • Establishment of Community/Technical College Systems (e.g., Kentucky and Louisiana) • Reorganizing Sub-Systems (e.g., Maryland, Minnesota and Texas)

25. Trends (Continued) • A Few Examples of Consolidation or Integration of Research University and Health Science Campuses to: • Create Reality (or Perception through Branding) of Scale for Research Competitiveness • Increase Global Ranking for Research Competitiveness

26. Common Governance Issues • Lack of “Venue” (an Agency or Other Entity) to Focus on and Sustain Attention to Long-Term Public Agenda • Disconnect Between State Funding Policies and Gubernatorial or Legislative Action • Lack of Capacity to Address and Implement More Effective or Efficient Programs or Delivery Methods that: • Fall Between the “Cracks” of Existing Systems • Threaten the Status-Quo and Run Counter to Institutional Interests • Lack of Capacity to Counter Mission Creep: • 2 Year Campuses Moving to 4 Year Baccalaureate Institutions • Comprehensive Universities to Research Universities

27. Common Governance Issues (Continued) • Inability of State to Make and Sustain Strategic Decisions (especially decisions that shift resources among institutions) • “Vertical” Organization of Systems That Lack Authority to Pursue “Horizontal” Collaboration Needed to Serve Regional/Metropolitan Needs • Imbalance in Geo-Political Power -- Played Out through Higher Education • Systems as Political Networks, Not Means to Achieve Effective System and Institutional Governance • Board Performance: Institutional, System and Statewide

28. Challenges for Governing Board States • Most Do Not Have a “Venue” to Lead and Shape Policy Alternatives for a Public Agenda Cutting Across All of the State’s Higher Education Sectors • System Governing Boards: • Focus on Internal Governance, Not System Leadership • Have Difficulty Achieving Mission Differentiation (e.g., between Major Research University Campuses and Comprehensive Universities) • Must Be Advocates for the Institutions They Govern

29. Governance in Louisiana

30. Louisiana Structure • One of 23 States with Statewide Coordinating Board and Governance by System Boards (Management Boards) • Louisiana Board of Regents: • One of Three Coordinating Boards Established by State Constitution (the others are Oklahoma and Nebraska) • Formal Authority is Stronger Than Most Coordinating Boards (Funding Policy, Program Approval, etc.)

31. Louisiana Structure (Continued) • LA Board of Regents • Board Influence Depends Significantly on Support from Governor and Legislature • Budget and Finance Policy • Response and Support for Recommendations • Limited Authority to Implement Initiatives that Cut Across or “Fall Between the Cracks” of Existing Systems

32. Louisiana Structure (Continued) • Management Boards • Legislative Appropriations Directly to Campuses Appears to Limit the Capacity of Systems to Lead and Govern • As in Other States, the “Systems” and the Institutions Assigned to Each System Have Evolved More from History and Politics than Deliberate Policy Choice and Mission Differentiation

33. Key Dimensions of Louisiana Context • Legacy of Historically Black Institutions and Major Priority to Increase Participation and Success of State’s African-American Population • Regional Differences (and Competition) in Economy, Culture, and Education and Workforce Needs • Disconnect Between Constitutional and Statutory Mandates and Political Realities in Decision-making and Resource Allocation

34. Principles

35. Principles to Guide Deliberations About Governance • Focus First on Ends, Not Means • Be Explicit about Specific Problems That Are Catalysts for Reorganization Proposals • Ask If Reorganization Is The Only Or The Most Effective Means for Addressing The Identified Problems • Weigh the Costs Of Reorganization Against the Short- and Long-term Benefits.

36. Principles (Continued) • Distinguish Between State Coordination and System/Institutional Governance • Examine the Total Policy Structure and Process, Including the roles of the Governor, Executive Branch Agencies and the Legislature, rather than only the Formal Postsecondary Education Structure

37. Exec. & LegislativeBranches of Govt. System Goal Setting Accountability President Vice Presidents Deans Department Heads Faculty Implementation The Hierarchical Realities

38. The system [education] is bottom heavy and loosely coupled. It is bottom heavy because the closer we get to the bottom of the pyramid, the closer we get to the factors that have the greatest effect on the program’s success or failure. The system is loosely coupled because the ability of one level to control the behavior of another is weak and largely negative… The skillful use of delegated control is central to making implementation work in bottom-heavy, loosely controlled systems. When it becomes necessary to rely mainly on hierarchical control, regulation, and compliance to achieve results, the game is essentially lost. Richard F. Elmore, Complexity and Control: What Legislators and Administrators Can Do About Implementing Public Policy

39. Conclusion • Bottom Line: Is There Something About the Governing Structure That is a Major Barrier to Achieving a Significantly More Effective and Cost-Efficient Delivery System? • Are There Specific Problems in the Allocation of Decision Authority That Can be Addressed without Major System Restructuring? • Do the Problems Justify the Costs of a Major System Restructuring?