States Perform provides users with access to interactive, customizable and up-to-date comparative performance measurement data for 50 states in six key areas: fiscal and economic, public safety and justice, energy and environment, transportation, health and human services, and education. Compare performance across a few or all states, profile one state, view trends over time, and customize your results with graphs and maps.
NLRB Holds that Student Assistants at Private Colleges and Universities Are Statutory Employees Covered by the NLRA.
From the press release:
This year’s Grapevine survey tentatively points to a modest national 3.4% increase in state support for higher education from fiscal year 2015-16 (FY16) to fiscal year 2016-17 (FY17), though an exact figure awaits a budget resolution in Illinois. There, legislators enacted only a partial FY17 budget that funded higher education through December 2016, and an agreement for augmenting those funds through the rest of the fiscal year has not yet been reached. This continues an ongoing budget impasse that left Illinois without a state budget in FY16, when funding for higher education was also limited to partial stopgap monies. In all, Illinois higher education funding remains sharply curtailed. Stopgap monies appropriated in FY16 amounted to only 17% of funding allocated in fiscal year 2014-15 (FY15), the last fiscal year for which Illinois enacted a full state budget. Stopgap monies allocated so far in FY17, although an increase over the partial funding amount appropriated in FY16, amount to only 29% of FY15 funding.
In the remaining 49 states, FY17 fiscal support for higher education represent an overall one-year increase of 2.7% from FY16: 39 states registered increases ranging from 0.2% to 10.5%, and 10 reported decreases ranging from 0.4% to 8.8%. The 2.7% increase for these 49 states is lower than the 4.1% increase registered from FY15 to FY16 in last year’s survey. Slumping energy prices appear to have taken a toll in at least some states, including Alaska, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming—states with a high economic stake in the oil and gas sector and that reported the largest declines in higher education funding between FY16 and FY17.
Increasing numbers of students are borrowing money to pay for higher education, incurring historically high levels of debt. Policymakers are concerned about the amount students are borrowing, their ability to repay, and the broader economic impacts of student debt. Refinancing existing loans at lower interest rates is one solution, and at least 12 states currently operate their own refinancing programs for students.
Source: Urban Institute, 2017
[tool was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation]
State and local governments educate schoolchildren, train the future workforce, care for the sick and elderly, build roads, patrol neighborhoods, extinguish fires, and maintain parks. In short, they’re pretty important. But few Americans understand where their state and local tax dollars go and to what effect. It’s not just the amount of money spent that matters, it’s why that money is spent the way it is.
Through this web tool, we aim to fill that knowledge gap. The tool allows users to get under the hood of their government and understand not only how much a state spends but also what drives that spending.
To do this, we apply a basic framework to all major areas of government spending. The framework says that state spending per capita is both a function of how many people receive a service and how much that service costs the state for each recipient. ….
…In this tool, you’ll see the spending per capita breakdown for all states and the District of Columbia across all major functional categories. It allows you to see how each state ranks, and you can sort by any factor you choose. (One frequent outlier is DC; though included in the rankings, it often functions more like a city than a state) We’ve included some annotations to guide you along the way. By exploring the tool, you’ll gain a sense of how much each state spends on any given area and why states spend what they do. ….
From the abstract:
This article analyzes data accumulated during the first three quarters of 2016 regarding completed and pending questions of representation involving faculty and student employees in higher education. It is part of a larger and continuing National Center research project that tracks faculty and graduate student employee unionization growth and representation efforts at private and public institutions of higher learning since January 1, 2013.
The data presented in this article demonstrates that the rate of newly certified units at private colleges and universities since January 1, 2016 far outpaces new units in the public sector. There has been a 25.9% increase in certified private sector faculty units over the number of private sector units identified by the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions in 2012, while the increase in the public sector has been 2.1%. The largest number of newly certified units involves non-tenure track faculty at private non-profit institutions. The second largest group of new units in higher education involves tenured and tenure-track faculty at public institutions. The average final election tallies demonstrate strong support for unionization among higher education faculty: 72.8% among private sector tenured/tenure-track and contingent faculty, and 73.3% among public sector tenure-track and contingent faculty.
The article demonstrates that unionization efforts by private sector tenured and tenure-track faculty and faculty continue to be adversely impacted by two judicially-created doctrines, despite modifications made to the applicable standards in a 2014 National Labor Relations Board decision. It also examines pending and completed unionization efforts by graduate and research assistants in light of the recent NLRB decision finding that private sector graduate student employees are entitled to the associational rights guaranteed under federal labor law.
Source: Robert G. Valletta, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 22935, December 2016
From the abstract:
Wage gaps between workers with a college or graduate degree and those with only a high school degree rose rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Since then, the rate of growth in these wage gaps has progressively slowed, and though the gaps remain large, they were essentially unchanged between 2010 and 2015. I assess this flattening over time in higher education wage premiums with reference to two related explanations for changing U.S. employment patterns: (i) a shift away from middle-skilled occupations driven largely by technological change (“polarization”); and (ii) a general weakening in the demand for advanced cognitive skills (“skill downgrading”). Analyses of wage and employment data from the U.S. Current Population Survey suggest that both factors have contributed to the flattening of higher education wage premiums.
Note: A summary and discussion of the paper can be found at Inside HigherEd
This annual report examines spending in the functional areas of state budgets: elementary and secondary education, higher education, public assistance, Medicaid, corrections, transportation, and all other. It also includes data on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and on revenue sources in state general funds.
– The total state spending growth rate slowed in fiscal 2016, following a 10-year high in fiscal 2015.
– Medicaid continued to increase as a share of total state spending, while K-12 remained the largest category from state funds.
– Transportation led the way in spending growth from state funds in both fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016, while Medicaid experienced the largest gains from all funds.
– Revenue growth slowed considerably in fiscal 2016 as states saw weaker collections from sales, personal income, and corporate income taxes.
From the overview:
CAP’s new plan for colleges to take responsibility for their student loan failures balances accountability and equity through a system of risk-sharing payments and bonuses.
Source: Paul Osterman, Andrew Weaver, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 55, Issue 4, October 2016
From the abstract:
This paper uses an original, nationally representative survey of manufacturing establishments to shed light on the interaction of employers with community colleges, including information on skill requirements and human resource practices. We test three hypotheses: that high‐skill employers use community colleges, that community colleges are a substitute for employer‐based training, and that community colleges are a complement to so‐called “high‐road” or “high‐commitment” human resource practices. We find limited utilization of community colleges by employers, but those that do establish a relationship are generally satisfied. Employers that demand high skills are more likely to use community colleges, as are “high‐commitment” firms.