Page One

State has trouble assessing whether UC meets its goals

By David Scharfenberg Daily Planet Staff
Friday July 26, 2002

A 1999 agreement between Gov. Gray Davis and the University of California, providing funding for the university in exchange for progress toward 22 goals, does not allow for true accountability, according to a report issued Thursday by the California State Auditor. 

The report asserts that only nine of the 22 objectives laid out in the four-year “partnership agreement” include quantifiable benchmarks that the governor and legislature can reference in making funding decisions. 

The audit also notes that, while the university’s primary mission is to teach and conduct research, only 44 percent of its salary increases between 1997 and 2001 went to academic salaries, while 56 percent went to support staff salaries. 

Furthermore, the report finds that 13 percent of the courses used to evaluate faculty workloads include two or fewer students, while an additional 15 percent of the courses have enrollments of only three to five students. Increasing faculty workloads is one of the goals in the partnership agreement. 

UC officials said they will re-examine the issue of small classes and will remove from their calculations any courses that should not be counted as full courses. 

“We very much take that recommendation to heart,” said university spokesperson Paul Schwartz. 

Schwartz said the emphasis on staff salaries rather than faculty salaries was due, in part, to a legislative mandate that the university focus on building its outreach efforts to high schools. Outreach, he noted, requires new staff hires rather than new faculty hires. 

Schwartz said a strategic decision to build the university’s information technology and fiscal services staff also played a role in the disparity. 

Former Gov. Pete Wilson in 1995 formed the first partnership agreement with the university in an effort to ensure funding stability and academic quality. 

In 1999, when the Wilson partnership expired, Davis agreed to support the new agreement as long as it included quantifiable measurements. 

Some of the goals laid out in the 1999 agreement include increasing faculty-teaching loads, boosting engineering and computer science enrollments, providing competitive faculty salaries and enhancing outreach programs.  

The agreement does not carry the weight of law, but the legislature and governor have used it to guide multibillion dollar funding decisions.  

In fiscal year 2000-2001, the legislature provided the university with $3.4 billion of its $12.7 billion in revenues. 

While the Davis Administration called for defining benchmarks, the auditor’s report suggests that the goals of the agreement are not clear enough. 

For instance, the agreement calls on the university to increase enrollment from low-performing high schools, but does not identify a specific percentage or timeline.  

A spokesperson for the Davis Administration said the governor had not reviewed the audit and had no comment. 

Schwartz said the university accepts the report’s recommendations, which suggest that future partnerships include clear, measurable objectives. 

But he argued that while the university’s progress on the 22 objectives in the agreement may not be easily measurable, the university has still made important strides. 

“We understand that we may not satisfy certain criteria for auditability,” said Schwartz. “That doesn’t mean we haven’t made progress.” 

The university said it has reached three of the nine quantifiable objectives laid out in the audit – ensuring admittance for all eligible applicants, increasing faculty-teaching loads and boosting engineering and computer science enrollments. 

The university said it did not reach two of the nine objectives – improving teacher education programs and increasing community college transfers to UC by 6 percent annually – due to factors beyond its control. 

In the case of community college transfers, for instance, the number of “transfer-ready” students declined by 10 percent in 1999-2000 from the prior year. 

The other four of the nine quantifiable objectives have future deadlines, so university progress cannot yet be measured.