Restructuring Higher Education to Help Create the Next Great American State for Economic Opportunity and Business Investment

Discussion document for Postsecondary Education Review Commission

August 10, 2009

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Higher education plays a central role in Louisiana’s economic development efforts

• However, our state’s higher education system is not structured to meet the current or future workforce and economic needs of our state

• Compared to higher education systems in leading states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas, Louisiana’s higher education system currently is heavily skewed toward 4-year degree programs, yet most current and future job opportunities here and elsewhere require more education / training than high school and less than a traditional 4-year degree

• The result: poor fit between higher education programs and workforce needs; hampered business development efforts; lowest graduation rates in the South; and a suboptimal return on investment of taxpayer dollars

• A restructured system would be more affordable while ensuring a better alignment of enrollments and programs with the state’s regional workforce needs, and it would provide many benefits, including: reduced skilled labor gaps, increased graduation and completion rates, enhanced ROI for state taxpayer dollars, strengthened state business climate, and significantly increased job creation

3

HIGHER EDUCATION PLAYS A CENTRAL ROLE IN STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS . . .

NOT COMPREHENSIVE

• Providing skilled workers at all levels to meet current and future workforce demands in the private and public sectors

• Providing training, general education, and upward mobility opportunities for our citizens

• Attracting federal and corporate research grants

• Conducting research and catalyzing innovation of importance to the state, its people, and its industries

• Improving our state’s image as an attractive location for business investment and highly mobile professionals

• Enhancing quality of life

4

. . . AND IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS THE MOST IMPORTANT SITE-SELECTION FACTOR FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS: WORKFORCE

*Priority of selection factors varies from project to project; however, quality and availability of workforce almost always is one of the top three considerations

**Typically these factors come into play when multiple locations offer relatively comparable characteristics relative to primary site-selection criteria

Source: LED analysis

Primary selection factors*

• Quality, availability, and cost of target workforce

• Tax and regulatory climate

• Proximity to key customers and suppliers

• Transportation infrastructure and logistics

• Operating costs (electricity, insurance, workers comp, etc.)

• Quality-of-life factors (public education options, crime, etc.)

• Availability of target real-estate solution (size, cost, control, water/sewer/rail connectivity, etc.)

NOT COMPREHENSIVE

Secondary selection factors**

• Level of state-and-community support (fast-track permitting, etc.)

• Availability and quality of customized training

• Statutory financial incentives

• Customized incentives

5

95

100

105

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Louisiana

South*

LOUISIANA’S EMPLOYMENT LEVELS HAVE OUTPACED THE SOUTH SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE NATIONAL RECESSION . . . Total nonfarm, seasonally-adjusted employment* (100=January 2008)

*Based on aggregate of SREB states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia)

Source:BLS; LED analysis

2008 2009

6

90

100

110

120

130

140

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Louisiana

South*

. . . HOWEVER, EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN LOUISIANA LAGGED THAT OF THE SOUTH IN MOST OF THE LAST DECADE

*Based on aggregate of SREB states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia)

Source:BLS; LED analysis

Total nonfarm employment (100=1990)

7

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

LouisianaSouth*

UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, LOUISIANA EXPERIENCED CONSISTENT NET OUTMIGRATION IN CONTRAST TO THE REST OF THE SOUTHAnnual net migration as percentage of base population (%)

*Based on total population of SREB states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia)

Source:U.S. Census; LED analysis

Katrina effect (-6.31)

8

MANY OF LOUISIANA’S KEY INDUSTRY SECTORS HAVE BEEN LOSING JOBS FOR MANY YEARS . . .

32

35

38

41

44

47

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

U.S. employment

Louisiana employment

Farming

20

22

24

26

28

30

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07

880

930

980

1030Chemical Manufacturing

8

9

10

11

12

13

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07

450

520

590

660Paper Manufacturing

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07

325

350

375

400

425Oil & Gas

Source:BEA; LED analysis

Thousands of jobs

9

100

150

200

250

300

350

'90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14 '16

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

'90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14 '16

. . . IN CONTRAST TO GROWING INDUSTRY SECTORS THAT HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED BY OTHER STATES

U.S. employment (historical)

Pharmaceuticals and Medicine Manufacturing

Computer Systems Design and Services Scientific Research & Design Services

Software Publishers

Source:BLS; LED analysis

EXAMPLES

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

'90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14 '16

450

500

550

600

650

700

'90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12 '14 '16

2007-16 growth forecast: 22%

2007-16 growth forecast: 8%

2007-16 growth forecast: 30%

2007-16 growth forecast: 27%

U.S. employment (forecast)

Thousands of jobs

10

LOUISIANA HAS BEGUN AN AGGRESSIVE EFFORT TO CULTIVATE NEW GROWTH INDUSTRIES

Source:LED analysis

Nuclear energy manufacturing

Example project win Significance• Shaw Modular Solutions will

manufacture modules for nuclear power plants in L.C.

• After manufacturing and assembly, modules will be shipped globally

• Electronic Arts (EA) has launched global quality assurance center in Baton Rouge

• Partnership between EA, Louisiana Economic Development, and LSU

• V-Vehicle announced plans to build a high-quality, fuel-efficient car in Monroe

• Plans to expand existing facility formerly owned by Guide Corp.

• ConAgra Foods will construct world’s first large-scale, LEED-certified sweet-potato processing facility near Delhi

• Opportunity for Louisiana to participate in global nuclear power renaissance with exponential growth potential

• Industry manufacturing jobs average $50-90k; design jobs average ~$200k

• Opportunity to establish competitive advantage in rapidly growing market

• Industry jobs average $60-80k

• Opportunity to participate in next generation of the U.S. auto industry

• Opportunity to build relationships with top-tier venture capital firms, including Kleiner Perkins and Google Ventures

• Opportunity to add value to Louisiana-grown crops right here at home

• Opportunity to establish credibility with other Fortune 500 agribusiness firms

• Average wage is 44 percent higher than per-capita average in Richland Parish

Digital interactive media

Advanced manufacturing

Value-added agribusiness

EXAMPLES – NOT COMPREHENSIVE

11

LOUISIANA’S WORKFORCE PIPELINE IS DRAMATICALLY OUT OF LINE WITH MARKET DEMANDS

100% 100%

*Based on Louisiana high school class of 2004**Based on 2014 projections from Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source:Louisiana Workforce Commission; LED analysis

Profile of jobs in LA (2014) **

Enter 4-yr public or private universities

Enter 2-yr colleges, etc.

Directly enter job market after graduation

Drop out or leave the state before graduation

Profile of jobs in LA (2004)

High school matriculation *

100%

37

20

26 24

858

55

35

16 21

Supply trend Demand trend

Require 4-yr college degree or higher

Require 2-yr degree, certificate, or adv. training

Require high school diploma or less w/ no specific training

12

LOUISIANA’S FTE ENROLLMENT MIX IS HEAVILY SKEWED TOWARD 4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE SOUTH

5554

49

48

44

44

43

39

38

36

36

35

32

31

22

4546

51

52

56

56

57

61

62

64

64

65

68

69

78

40

26

60

74

North Carolina

*2007-2008 FTE enrollments are calculated by taking total credit-hours and dividing them by the corresponding number of hours for full-time students** 2-year institutions include both community and technical colleges

Source:SREB; LED analysis

Florida

Texas

Mississippi

Maryland

South Carolina

Oklahoma

Southern average

Georgia

Arkansas

Virginia

Tennessee

Alabama

Kentucky

Delaware

Louisiana

West Virginia

2-year institutions**

4-year institutions

FTE enrollments (%)*

13

UNLIKE LOUISIANA, TOP PERFORMING STATES MAINTAIN AN ENROLLMENT MIX THAT IS BALANCED WITH WORKFORCE NEEDS

26

74

4852

5347

4555

Louisiana

Top-performing states**

FTE enrollments by type of institution (%)

Workforce needs by required education* (%)

2-year institutions

4-year+ institutions

*PRELIMINARY ROUGH ESTIMATES based on 2006-2016 projections; total workforce needs include only jobs that require at least some postsecondary vocational training/education**Top-performing states include Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas

Source:Louisiana Occupational Outlook; BLS; SREB; LED analysis

14

CURRENTLY, LOUISIANA GENERATES A SURPLUS OF 4-YEAR (OR HIGHER) DEGREES COMPARED TO RELATED JOB OPENINGS

4-year+ degrees granted (2006-07)*

Annual job openings requiring 4-year+ degree**

*Includes both public and private institutions; public institutions alone grant ~23K degrees per year**Includes net growth and replacements from job attrition based on 2006 to 2016 Louisiana occupational projectionsSource:Louisiana Occupational Outlook; SREB; LED analysis

Workforce supply measure

Workforce demand measure

~30,000

~13,000

Gap of ~17,000 per year = out-migration pipeline

15

MANY OF LOUISIANA’S TOP GROWTH OCCUPATIONS REQUIRE EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL BUT LESS THAN A 4-YEAR DEGREE

1,350

840

340

520

570

390

380

380

260

390

320

310

260

190

260

640

690

910

540

440

510

460

450

570

350

250

230

270

310

230

Annual openings projected by occupation*

*Number of job openings based on employment projections for 2006-2016; analysis limited to occupations that require some postsecondary education

Source:Louisiana Occupational Outlook; LED analysis

Registered nurses

Customer service representatives

General and operations managers

Elementary school teachers

Bookkeeping / accounting clerks

Licensed practical / vocational nurses

Mfg. and wholesale sales representatives

Truck drivers

Secretaries (excl. legal, medical and exec.)

Welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers

Executive secretaries

Accountants and auditors

Restaurant cooks

Institution and cafeteria cooks

Correctional officers and jailers

Education / training required

Vocational / 2-year 4-year

1,990

1,530

1,250

1,060

1,010

900

840

830

830

740

570

540

520

500

500

Due to net growth

Due to attrition loss

TOP 15 GROWTH OCCUPATIONS*

16

ALIGNING LOUISIANA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM WITH WORKFORCE NEEDS WOULD GENERATE SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS

ScenarioEst. savings*

($MM/year)

2007-08 (recent baseline)

50% towards SREB average

SREB average

Top-performing states’ avg.**

Aligned w/ workforce needs***

--

20-40

50-75

80-110

100-130

2-yr FTEs (%)

4-yr FTEs (%)

26

33

40

48

53

74

67

60

52

47

*Equals the difference between FY08 funding scenario and the required state funding calculated for each scenario

**Assumes that Louisiana meets 2-year / 4-year FTE enrollment mix of GA, NC, and TX

*** Louisiana achieves a 2-year / 4-year FTE enrollment mix that is equal to estimated workforce needs

Source: SREB; LED analysis

Additional savings can be generated via other system-wide efficiency mechanisms (e.g., reduced duplication of programs and facilities, classification shifts, and performance-based funding)

Additional savings can be generated via other system-wide efficiency mechanisms (e.g., reduced duplication of programs and facilities, classification shifts, and performance-based funding)

ROUGH ESTIMATES FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES

17

LOUISIANA STEADILY INCREASED TOTAL STATE FUNDING EFFORTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND SURPASSED THE SOUTHERN AVERAGE . . .

Total state funding as a percentage of personal income (%)

*Louisiana funding levels do not include TOPS funding**Average is not weighted based on state population

Source:SREB; U.S. Census; LED analysis

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Louisiana*

Total state funding per capita ($ per resident)

Southern average**

0.4

0.6

0.8

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Louisiana*

Percent of southern average (%) 89 88 96 105 108 109 107 110 120

99 96 103 112 116 134 107 108 116

Southern average**

Percent of southern average (%)

18

. . . AND TOTAL STATE HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING LEVELS HERE RECENTLY WERE ABOVE THOSE IN MANY LEADING STATES (FY08)

308

294

259

244

241

219

215

207

198

189

188

176

171

164

151

218

261

Total state funding as a percentage of personal income* (%)

*Funding levels based on 2007-08 state appropriations and 2008 personal income**For comparison purposes, Louisiana funding levels do not include TOPS funding; TOPS funding for 2007-2008 adds $26 on a per capita basis and 0.07% on a percentage of personal income basisSource:SREB; U.S. Census; Bureau of Economic Analysis; LED analysis

North Carolina

Alabama

Louisiana**

Delaware

Mississippi

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Southern average

Georgia

Kentucky

Maryland

Virginia

Florida

Texas

Tennessee

West Virginia

South Carolina

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.7

North Carolina

Alabama

Mississippi

Arkansas

Louisiana**

Kentucky

Delaware

Georgia

Southern average

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Tennessee

Florida

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Maryland

Total state funding per capita* ($ per resident)

19

LA’S HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING FROM STATE SOURCES RECENTLY WAS FOURTH-HIGHEST IN THE SOUTH ON A PER-FTE BASIS (FY08) . . .

7.5

7.1

7.0

6.9

6.7

6.6

6.2

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.3

5.2

4.6

4.2

6.2

6.9

Total state-provided higher education funding per FTE* ($000s)

*Funding level based on 2007-08 state appropriations; FTE enrollments are calculated by taking total credit-hours and dividing them by the corresponding number of hours for full-time students**Louisiana funding levels do not include TOPS funding

Source:SREB; LED analysis

Alabama

Delaware

North Carolina

Louisiana**

Georgia

Maryland

Arkansas

Florida

Kentucky

Southern average

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Virginia

Texas

South Carolina

West Virginia

20

. . . HOWEVER, LA’S TOTAL PER-FTE HIGHER ED FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES RECENTLY WAS BELOW THE SOUTHERN AVERAGE (FY08) . . .

18.7

13.6

12.8

12.5

12.1

11.3

10.8

10.7

10.6

10.5

10.4

10.0

9.8

9.6

9.1

11.4

10.4

Total higher education funding per FTE* ($000s)

*Funding level based on 2007-08 state appropriations and tuition and fees; FTE enrollments are calculated by taking total credit-hours and dividing them by the corresponding number of hours for full-time students**Louisiana funding levels do not include TOPS funding

Source:SREB; LED analysis

Delaware

Maryland

Kentucky

Alabama

South Carolina

Southern average

Virginia

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Mississippi

Georgia

Louisiana**

West Virginia

Texas

North Carolina

Florida

21

. . . BECAUSE LA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM GENERATES LESS FUNDING FROM TUITION AND FEES THAN THE REST OF THE SOUTH

11.5

7.6

6.9

6.6

6.0

5.8

5.0

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.2

3.5

2.9

2.6

5.3

3.5

Total self-generated higher education funding per FTE* ($000s)

*Funding level based on 2007-08 tuition and fee revenue; FTE enrollments are calculated by taking total credit-hours and dividing them by the corresponding number of hours for full-time students

Source:SREB; LED analysis

Delaware

South Carolina

Maryland

Kentucky

Virginia

West Virginia

Southern average

Alabama

Tennessee

Oklahoma

Texas

Mississippi

Arkansas

Georgia

Louisiana

Florida

North Carolina

22

LOUISIANA’S HIGHER EDUCATION GRADUATION RATE IS LAST AMONG THE SOUTHERN STATES FOR FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

71.0

67.3

61.7

59.4

58.8

57.9

49.2

48.8

48.5

48.3

47.5

46.8

46.1

45.4

40.2

52.2

37.4

Six-year graduation rates* at four-year institutions (%)

*Six-year graduation rate based on first-time, full-time students seeking bachelor’s degrees that enrolled in public four-year institutions in 2001

Source:SREB; U.S. Census; LED analysis

Delaware

Virginia

Maryland

South Carolina

North Carolina

Florida

Southern average

Georgia

Texas

Mississippi

Kentucky

Oklahoma

Alabama

West Virginia

Tennessee

Arkansas

Louisiana

23

LSU’S OPERATIONAL FUNDING LAGS TOP PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

Operational funding per FTE student 1 ($ thousands)

1Operational funding estimates for universities in SREB states are calculated from 2005-06 SREB state general purpose, state educational purpose, and operating tuition & fees excluding university medical schools; U. of Michigan tuition & fee estimates derived from IPEDS estimates minus UM-reported medical school-related tuition & fees, UM state appropriations derived from IPEDS assuming 40 percent of total campus appropriations dedicated to medical school; University of California – Berkeley data extracted from IPEDS data system; figures may not sum exactly due to rounding2Endowment income estimates based on The Center for Measuring University Performance’s 2005 estimates in all cases except LSU, which was reported by the LSU Foundation; all income estimates assume that four percent of endowment asset market value is applied to operations each year3LSU A&M, LSU AgCenter, and LSU Law Center

Source: SREB; IPEDS; University of Michigan; The Center for Measuring University Performance; BRAC analysis

30.7

25.4

24.2

22.9

21.6

21.6

19.5

19.4

18.8

18.3

17.9

15.5

9.6

13.6

13.5

11.7

10.9

5.0

9.8

13.8

9.3

11.4

11.7

11.1

Texas A&M

Georgia Tech

U. of Texas at Austin

U. of Cal. - Berkeley

U. of Florida

U. of Maryland

State appropriations

Tuition and fees

15.3

2.2

10.8

10.5

7.1

U. of Michigan

U. of Virginia

U. of Georgia

7.1 4.7

8.5

Top peer avg. 2.5

UNC - Chapel Hill

8.3

6.1

8.4

4.9

LSU (2007) 3

6.3

3.7

Endowment income 2

5.8

2.6

5.7

U.S. News “Best Colleges” ranking (out of 130)

26

64

21

53

N/A

23

30

58

47

35

130

49

COST NUMBERS BASED ON 2005/2006 DATA

24

KEY ELEMENTS FOR ALIGNING LOUISIANA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM WITH ITS WORKFORCE NEEDSKey elements Benefits

Source:LED analysis

Implications

LSU with national-caliber operations and facilities

• Attraction, cultivation, and retention of world-class talent

• Nationally-competitive R&D (e.g., federal/corporate research grants)

• Improved state image and PR

• Need for a credible 10-15 year strategy to achieve national prominence

• Funding and enrollment model to achieve strategic plan

Regional universities with focus on student success and regional workforce needs

• Dramatically increased completion rates and student success

• Greater alignment with current and future regional workforce needs

• Increased admissions standards• Optimized enrollments and

programs, incl. graduate level• Reduced duplication of programs

and institutions

LCTCS with appropriate enrollments, adequate facilities, and regional integration

• Strong alignment with current and future workforce needs

• Clear career pathways with high completion and placement rates

• Economies of scale at the regional level (e.g., class size)

• Improved business climate for many industry sectors

• Funding increases for rapid LCTCS enrollment growth

• Targeted investments in facilities, especially technical colleges

• Mechanisms to add/delete programs based on regional workforce needs

• Marketing / guidance counseling

Strong system-wide efficiency and accountability mechanisms

• Increased responsiveness to market needs

• Improved collaboration/articulation between 2-yr and 4-yr institutions

• Increased emphasis on performance-based funding

• Funding follows the student (i.e., less emphasis on “base” funding)

• Potential facility sharing among 2-yr and 4-yr regional institutions

NOT COMPREHENSIVE

25

THERE ARE MANY BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING A BETTER ALIGNED HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

Source:LED analysis

NOT COMPREHENSIVE

• Reduced skilled labor gaps (top business concern)

• Increased graduation and completion rates

• Improved in-state job placement rates

• Enhanced ROI for taxpayer dollars

• Strengthened state business climate

• Improved industry/university innovation and collaboration

• Enhanced state image

• Reduced brain drain

• Significantly increased job-creation success

• Stable or improved funding per FTE at most institutions

26

SELECTED QUESTIONS PERC MAY WANT TO CONSIDER

Source:LED analysis

EXAMPLES – NOT COMPREHENSIVE

• Given current/future workforce needs and the State’s fiscal situation, what is the appropriate enrollment mix between two-year and four-year institutions?

• Are undergraduate program enrollments at two-year and four-year institutions in each region well aligned with current and future workforce needs in the region? Do programs overlap?

• Would the current funding formula enable a rapid shift to an alternative enrollment mix if necessary? If not, which mechanisms should be implemented to optimize enrollment mix?

• Are admissions standards at four-year universities comparable with their SREB peers? If not, which mechanisms should be used to set appropriate admissions standards?

• Are current facilities adequate to support high quality services, optimal enrollment mix, and necessary growth? If not, how should we modify use of existing facilities and/or fund new ones?

• Does the current funding formula sufficiently emphasize key performance metrics (e.g., completion rates, workforce placement, sponsored research)?

• What are the plausible state budget scenarios for the next 2-5 years and how should our higher education system be structured to respond to each of them?

27

ADDITIONAL CHARTS

28

LOUISIANA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM SHOULD PROMOTE:

Source:LED analysis

KEY OBJECTIVES - NOT COMPREHENSIVE

• Student success in school (e.g., completion) and life (e.g., employment)

• Quality programs and facilities at all levels

• Alignment with current and future workforce needs

• Attraction, retention, and cultivation of world-class talent & R&D capacity

• Access for economically-disadvantaged students

• Efficient use of financial resources within State fiscal means

29

CURRENTLY, LOUISIANA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM FALLS SHORT ON SEVERAL KEY OBJECTIVES

Source:LED analysis

Objective Preliminary evaluation

• Student success in school (e.g., completion) and life (e.g., employment)

• Quality programs and facilities at all levels

• Alignment with current and future workforce needs

• Attraction, retention, and cultivation of world-class talent & R&D capacity

• Access for economically-disadvantaged students

• Efficient use of financial resources within State fiscal means

• College/university graduation rates are last in South• Many graduates finish in programs that are not well

aligned with current or future workforce needs

• General improvement opportunities exist in most areas• Some technical college programs, equipment, and

facilities lag significantly

• Enrollments are significantly out of line with current and future workforce needs in Louisiana and rest of South

• LSU has momentum but significantly lags top public research universities

• Other campuses (e.g., La Tech) have niche strengths

• TOPS and overall enrollments suggest Louisiana performs relatively well

• Funding mechanisms provide insufficient incentives and accountability

• Institutions are not well integrated at regional level

INCOMPLETE DRAFT

30

ADJUSTING FOR OLDER STATE RESIDENTS, LOUISIANA’S PER-CAPITA FUNDING LEVEL RANKING IS RELATIVELY STABLE

Total state funding per resident under age 65* ($ per resident)

*Funding level based on 2007-08 state appropriations**Louisiana funding levels do not include TOPS funding

Source:SREB; U.S. Census; LED analysis

North Carolina

Alabama

Delaware

Louisiana**

Arkansas

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Southern average

Georgia

Kentucky

Florida

Maryland

Virginia

Tennessee

Texas

West Virginia

South Carolina

308

294

259

244

241

219

215

207

198

189

188

176

171

164

151

218

261

North Carolina

Alabama

Louisiana**

Delaware

Mississippi

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Southern average

Georgia

Kentucky

Maryland

Virginia

Florida

Texas

Tennessee

West Virginia

South Carolina

Total state funding per capita* ($ per resident)

352

341

300

281

279

253

239

238

228

225

215

197

196

195

174

297

251