Report 2015-107 Recommendation 23 Responses

Report 2015-107: The University of California: Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students (Release Date: March 2016)

Recommendation #23 To: University of California

To ensure that its rebenching efforts lead to equalized per-student funding among the campuses, the university should exclude from its rebenching calculation all state funding it uses for programs that do not directly relate to educating students. The university should exclude these programs only after it has evaluated them in accordance with the recommendation we made previously.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

Those programs that are funded separately from a per-student funding model were either identified through a consultative process and/or received specific State-designated appropriations at the time rebenching was adopted (or in subsequent years). Although the University will periodically review the list of programs that it treats as set-asides for purposes of State funding, it does not believe that it is possible or desirable to consider every use of State funds that does not "directly relate to educating students" as entitled to a separate allocation outside of the University's per-student allocation methodology.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

Those programs that are funded separately from a per-student funding model were either identified through a consultative process and/or received specific State-designated appropriations at the time rebenching was adopted (or in subsequent years). Although the University will periodically review the list of programs that it treats as set-asides for purposes of State funding, it does not believe that it is possible or desirable to consider every use of State funds that does not "directly relate to educating students" as entitled to a separate allocation outside of the University's per-student allocation methodology.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

1-Year Agency Response

Those programs that are funded separately from a per-student funding model were either identified through a consultative process and/or received specific State-designated appropriations at the time rebenching was adopted (or in subsequent years). Although the University will periodically review the list of programs that it treats as set-asides for purposes of State funding, it does not believe that it is possible or desirable to consider every use of State funds that does not "directly relate to educating students" as entitled to a separate allocation outside of the University's per-student allocation methodology.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As stated previously, our recommendation is based on the fact that the university currently excludes only some of the programs that do not directly relate to educating students from its rebenching calculation. During the audit we had extensive conversations with university staff related to the applicable programs detailed in Table 17 of our report. The university did not provide additional documentation of any actions it has taken, therefore the recommendation status remains as it will not implement.

6-Month Agency Response

The University disagrees that "all" State funding for programs that "do not directly related to educating students" should be excluded from the State funding methodology as set-asides. This recommendation is overly broad and very difficult to reasonably interpret. The University will continue to review the list of set-asides it treats separately in the State allocation methodology, as indicated in the prior recommendation, but it does not intend to extend that list to all such related programs.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As stated in the 60-day public assessment, our recommendation is based on the fact that the university currently excludes only some of the programs that do not directly relate to educating students from its rebenching calculation. Further, because we had extensive discussions with university staff during the audit, and we provided a list of these programs in Table 17 on page 75 of our report, we disagree with the university's statement that this recommendation "is overly broad and very difficult to reasonably interpret." In our report on pages 77 to 79, we indicated that the university could not provide to us a sufficient rationale for why it excluded some programs and not others from its rebenching calculation. Therefore, our recommendation is intended to ensure consistency within the rebenching formula.

60-Day Agency Response

The University disagrees that "all" State funding for programs that "do not directly related to educating students" should be excluded from the State funding methodology as set-asides. This recommendation is overly broad and very difficult to reasonably interpret. Does this mean all funds for administration or maintenance of plant should be excluded? As the methodology was being developed, the work group was fully aware that funds would be distributed for non-student-related functions. However, the group felt that the number of students a campus enrolls was a good proxy for the appropriate level of State support for a particular campus despite the fact that these funds would be used for programs that do not directly support student instruction. The University will continue to review the list of set-asides it treats separately in the State allocation methodology, as indicated in the prior recommendation, but it does not intend to extend that list to all such related programs.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

Our recommendation is based on the fact that the university currently excludes only some of the programs that do not directly relate to educating students from its rebenching calculation. Further, because we had extensive discussions with university staff during the audit, and we provided a list of these programs in Table 17 on page 75 of our report, we disagree with the university's statement that this recommendation "is overly broad and very difficult to reasonably interpret." In our report on pages 77 to 79, we indicated that the university could not provide to us a sufficient rationale for why it excluded some programs and not others. Therefore, our recommendation is intended to ensure consistency within the rebenching formula.

All Recommendations in 2015-107

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.