Performance audit and sunset review, Commission for Postsecondary Education

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
COMMISSION
FOR
POSTSECONDARY
EDUCATION
November 1997
Report Number 97-19
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
November 14, 1997
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Ms. Verna Allen, Executive Director
Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Arizona
Commission for Postsecondary Education. This report is in response to a March 24, 1997,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was conducted as
part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §§41-2951 through 41-2957.
The report focuses on the need for the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education. The
Commission is currently at a turning point. The Commission was created to meet a federal
requirement that no longer exists. As a result, the Commission is planning to expand its policy
analysis and early awareness activities, which have been limited in the past. The report
recommends that the Legislature consider whether it wants the Commission to play an expanded
role in these areas. If so, the Commission’s statutory and budgetary authority should be changed
to clearly specify these roles. If the Legislature does not wish the Commission to perform policy
analysis or early awareness activities, it should consider sunsetting the Commission, since other
entities could or do perform its other activities.
Because the report recommendations are addressed to the Legislature, the Commission has no
role in implementing the recommendations. However, as outlined in its response, the Arizona
Commission for Postsecondary Education agrees with those recommendations addressing
changes which are needed if the agency is continued.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
i
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of
the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education pursuant to a March 24, 1997, reso-lution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the author-ity
vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through
41-2957.
The Commission for Postsecondary Education (Commission) was formed under executive
order in 1972 to meet a federal requirement, which no longer exists, that states set up advi-sory
commissions to develop coordinated planning among public and private postsecon-dary
institutions. Between 1972 and 1994, the Commission administered some federal
financial aid programs and published postsecondary education guides for students. In 1994,
the Commission was formed as a separate state agency, primarily to meet a federal require-ment
that each state have a separate agency to act as a State Postsecondary Review Entity
(SPRE). Each state’s SPRE was mandated to review postsecondary educational institutions
to determine eligibility for federal financial aid and ensure that only those institutions
meeting federal criteria received aid. However, before the Commission ever began to con-duct
such reviews, federal funding for SPRE was discontinued. Although the federal law
still exists, the State is not required to perform SPRE reviews unless funding is restored.
While the Commission is no longer required to perform SPRE activities, statutes require it to
conduct other activities, including administering two financial aid programs, supervising
the state loan guarantor, providing information to the public about postsecondary opportu-nities,
administering the State’s college savings plan, and conducting specific policy studies.
A 16-member board appointed by the Governor is charged with carrying out these statutory
responsibilities.
Whether the Commission
Should Continue to Exist
Depends on What Role the
Legislature Wants It to Serve
(See pages 7 through 13)
The Commission for Postsecondary Education is currently at a turning point. The Commis-sion
is currently no longer needed to conduct SPRE activities. As a result, the Commission
has developed ambitious plans to conduct policy studies. The Commission is also planning
a statewide early awareness effort to inform K-12 students about the need to obtain a higher
education. While these activities may be valuable, it is not clear whether they reflect legisla-
ii
tive intent. Indeed, the Commission does not appear to have budgetary authority to conduct
such activities. Furthermore, the Commission=s indefinite statutory authority, limited num-ber
of public members, and lack of staff qualified to perform policy studies also calls into
question whether the Commission=s proposed activities reflect legislative intent.
The Legislature should decide whether it wishes the Commission to play an expanded role
in performing policy analysis and early awareness activities. If the Legislature does not wish
the Commission to play a major role in conducting postsecondary educational policy stud-ies
or promoting early awareness, it should consider sunsetting the Commission. The
Commission would not be needed since the Commission=s financial aid and other programs
could be administered by other state agencies. If the Commission were sunsetted, adminis-trative
costs could be reduced by at least $80,000. The savings could be used to distribute
financial aid to an estimated 126 additional students since the Commission’s administrative
expenses are mostly paid for with financial aid monies contributed by postsecondary edu-cation
institutions.
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background .............................................................. 1
Finding I: Whether the Commission Should
Continue to Exist Depends on What Role
the Legislature Wants It to Serve.................................................... 7
Commission Is at a Turning Point.............................................................................. 7
If Planned Activities Are Not Desired,
the Legislature Should Consider
Sunsetting the Commission........................................................................................ 10
Recommendations........................................................................................................ 13
Sunset Factors........................................................................................ 15
Agency Response
Table
Table 1 Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Other Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1997
(Unaudited)................................................................................................ 5
iv
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of
the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education pursuant to a March 24, 1997, reso-lution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the author-ity
vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through
41-2957.
Commission Background and History
The Commission for Postsecondary Education (Commission) was formed under executive
order in 1972 to meet a federal requirement, which no longer exists, that states set up advi-sory
commissions to develop coordinated planning among public and private postsecon-dary
institutions. Between 1972 and 1994, the Commission administered some federal
financial aid programs and published postsecondary education guides for students. In 1994,
the Commission was formed as a separate state agency, primarily to meet a federal require-ment
that each state have a separate agency to act as a State Postsecondary Review Entity
(SPRE). Each state’s SPRE was mandated to review postsecondary educational institutions
to determine eligibility for federal financial aid and ensure that only those institutions
meeting federal criteria received aid. However, before the Commission ever began to con-duct
such reviews, federal funding for SPRE was discontinued. Although the federal law
still exists, the State is not required to perform SPRE reviews unless funding is restored.
The 16-member Commission is comprised of the executive directors of the Arizona Board of
Regents, the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges, and the State Board for Pri-vate
Postsecondary Education. The other 13 commissioners represent various educational
entities, including two from the public universities, two from community colleges, two from
private postsecondary institutions offering bachelor’s or higher degrees, three from private
postsecondary institutions offering vocational education programs, two from the high
school education system, one from a private cosmetology school, and one from commerce or
industry. Commissioners are appointed by the Governor for four-year terms.
Commission Responsibilities and Duties
Although the Commission was formed as a state agency primarily to act as the SPRE, fed-eral
funding for SPRE was discontinued in 1995. Subsequently, the federal government no
2
longer requires states to perform SPRE activities.1 As a result, the Commission is no longer
needed to review institutions’ financial aid eligibility, even though the Commission spent
over a year developing a process to conduct such reviews. No reviews were actually con-ducted
before the program was discontinued.
While the Commission is no longer required to perform SPRE activities, the Commission’s
other statutory requirements established at the time of its creation still exist. These require-ments
include:
n Administering the State Student Incentive Grant Program—Statute requires the
Commission to administer the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program. This pro-gram
provides approximately 5,200 financial aid awards annually to students who at-tend
postsecondary institutions and demonstrate financial need. The program is funded
by the State, the federal government, and participating postsecondary institutions. As
administrator of this grant program, the Commission distributed approximately $2.6
million in financial aid to participating institutions in fiscal year 1996-97. The amount of
financial aid distributed to each institution is based on the number of Arizona residents
enrolled at each institution.
n Overseeing the state loan guarantor—Statute requires the Commission to “supervise”
the State’s student loan guarantor. The guarantor, a nonprofit loan servicer under con-tract
with the Arizona Department of Administration, guarantees that financial aid lend-ers
will be reimbursed if a borrower defaults on a loan. The Commission has no
regulatory authority over the guarantor, although it does informally meet with the guar-antor
to discuss loan access issues.
n Providing information to the public—Statute also requires the Commission to provide
information to the public about postsecondary education opportunities. The Commis-sion
performs a number of activities to meet this statutory requirement. For example, it
produces several publications, including the Course Equivalency Guide, a list of courses
that can be transferred from the community colleges to the universities; the College and
Career Guide, a list of postsecondary opportunities in the State; and Ready for Success, an
academic planning guide for middle school students. In 1996, the Commission pub-lished
and distributed 92,000 copies of these 3 publications.
In addition to publishing resource materials, the Commission also advertised and con-ducted
a financial aid workshop in February 1997 to help individual students fill out fi-
1 Laws requiring states to establish SPREs still exist. However, states do not have to resume SPRE
functions unless federal funding to conduct these functions is restored. According to congressional
staff, the possibility of future funding is unlikely.
3
nancial aid forms. Approximately 1,600 students attended financial aid workshops at 17
sites statewide.
The Commission is currently beginning a third type of public information effort, a
statewide early awareness initiative. The initiative will rely heavily on the media to
communicate messages about the need for parents and K-12 students to prepare for
postsecondary education. The effort will also work to develop local partnerships to in-crease
students’ school attendance and preparation for postsecondary education. As dis-cussed
in Finding I (see pages 7 through 13), the Commission is attempting to or already
has secured support for this program from Arizona educational institutions, national
and state educational organizations, and Arizona businesses.
n Considering the needs of the unserved—The Commission is also required by statute
to consider “the postsecondary needs of unserved and underserved individuals in this
State.” To meet this statutory requirement, the Commission contracted with experts to
write two policy studies through the Commission’s policy center, called the Arizona Mi-nority
Education Policy Analysis Center.
In 1996 and 1997, the Commission was given several additional statutory responsibilities:
n Administering the Postsecondary Education Voucher Program—This program
gives community college graduates up to $1,500 per year to attend a private college or
private university to assist them in completing a four-year degree. Sixty students re-ceived
a total of $90,000 in grants during fiscal year 1997.
n Conducting public policy studies—Effective July 1, 1997, the Commission is required
to “study enrollment demand and examine public policy options to accommodate any
increase in demand for postsecondary education services, including the role for private
and nonprofit sectors.” Additionally, the Commission is required to “promote and en-courage
coordinated comprehensive instructional and capital planning between and
among public and private postsecondary education institutions and systems including
telecommunications networks related to postsecondary education.”
Statutory changes made in 1996 allow the Commission to establish “policy centers” to
conduct enrollment studies. In addition, the Commission is now required to “study the
needs of the unserved and underserved,” not just “consider” such needs as was previ-ously
required.
n Administering the State’s college savings plan—This plan, signed into law in April
1997, creates a savings plan that will allow families to accumulate state and federal tax-free
interest on savings designated for a child’s college education. As administrator of
4
the program, the Commission will contract with one or more financial institutions to
manage savings dollars invested at each financial institution.
In addition to the statutory duties listed above, the Commission is responsible for adminis-tering
three other financial aid programs. However, these financial aid programs are no
longer receiving or have never received funding. These programs are the Arizona Student
Program Investing Resources for Education, the Arizona Teachers Incentive Program
(ATIP), and the federal Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship Program. The Commission does
still play a minor role in receiving monies returned by ATIP and Paul Douglas scholarship
recipients.
Budget and Staff
The Commission for Postsecondary Education currently employs four full-time equivalent
(FTE) staff. This represents a decrease from its fiscal year 1996-97 staffing level of 7.8 FTEs.
Current staff include an executive director and a half-time FTE who prepares the Commis-sion’s
budget. The remaining employees are responsible for a variety of activities including
administering financial aid, gathering information for the Commission’s publications, and
coordinating meetings and taking minutes.
For fiscal year 1996-97, the Commission received $3,239,549 in revenue (see Table 1, page 5).
Forty-one percent ($1,334,000) of its total revenue comes from the General Fund. This
amount includes $1,220,800 for State Student Incentive Grants, $100,000 for the Arizona
Postsecondary Education Voucher Program, and $13,200 to produce the Course Equivalency
Guide.
The Commission received the remaining 59 percent of its revenue ($1,905,549) from a variety
of sources. First, it received $1,223,599 from institutions that participate in the State Student
Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program. Second, it received $537,332 in federal money for the SSIG
program. The remaining revenue was raised from various sources, including sales of Com-mission
publications, sales of advertisements in the publications, and grants from other state
agencies and public postsecondary institutions.
The Commission expended $3,216,287 in fiscal year 1996-97. Most of the Commission’s
administrative expenses were paid out of the SSIG institutional match money, since the
federal government prohibits the use of state or federal SSIG monies for administrative
purposes.
5
Table 1
Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Other Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1997
(Unaudited)
1996 1997
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $1,234,000 $1,334,000
Federal and institutional contributions 1 2,340,261 1,760,931
Earnings on investments 42,644 52,267
Sales and charges for services 2 4,131 10,314
Other 24,385 82,037
Total revenues 3,645,421 3,239,549
Expenditures: 3
Personal services 200,200 241,091
Employee related 41,802 47,301
Professional and outside services 29,142 39,914
Travel, in-state 1,055 1,679
Travel, out-of-state 8,750 8,775
Aid to individuals 4 3,381,620 2,790,756
Other operating 62,362 77,637
Total expenditures 3,724,931 3,207,153
Reversions to State General Fund             9,134
Total expenditures and reversions to
State General Fund 3,724,931 3,216,287
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures
and reversions to State General Fund (79,510) 23,262
Fund balance, beginning of year 272,432 192,922
Fund balance, end of year $ 192,922 $ 216,184
1 Includes the following monies for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1997, respectively: State Student
Incentive Grant (SSIG) federal contributions, $1,078,251 and $537,332; SSIG matching funds from partici-pating
institutions, $1,039,462 and $1,000,063; and contributions from SSIG participating institutions for
Commission administrative costs, $165,322 and $223,536.
2 Includes revenues from publication sales and advertising in the publications.
3 Each year’s expenditures include immaterial administrative adjustments attributable to the prior year.
4 Includes grants to Arizona residents in the SSIG and Postsecondary Higher Education Voucher programs.
Source: The Uniform Statewide Accounting System Revenues and Expenditures by Fund, Program, Organization,
and Object and Trial Balance by Fund reports and the State of Arizona Appropriations Report for the years
ended June 30, 1996 and 1997.
6
Audit Scope and Methodology
This audit focuses on the need for the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education.
The report recommends that the Legislature consider whether it wants the Commission to
expand its work in policy analysis and early awareness activities. If so, the Commission’s
statutory and budgetary authority should be changed to clearly specify these roles. If the
Legislature does not wish the Commission to perform policy analysis or early awareness
activities, it should consider sunsetting the Commission, since other entities could or do
perform its other activities.
To perform this review, auditors interviewed 11 of the 16 current Commission members.
Other representatives interviewed from the education sector included senior staff from the
Arizona Education Conference Committee, the University of Phoenix, the Maricopa County
Community College District, the Arizona Private School Association, the Department of
Education, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, the Arizona Students
Association, the Morrison Institute, and the Phoenix Unified School District.
Private sector representatives interviewed include representatives from the College Board (a
donor for the Commission’s early awareness initiative), the Arizona Community Founda-tion,
and financial institutions. Representatives from several state agencies were also con-tacted,
including the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Governor’s Office of Strategic
Planning and Budgeting, the State Treasurer’s Office, the Governor’s Office of School to
Work, and the Attorney General’s Office. Representatives from the 12 states with postsecon-dary
commissions that perform policy analysis were also interviewed.
Additionally, auditors reviewed applicable state and federal laws, rules, and executive or-ders
pertaining to Commission responsibilities and programs. Commission minutes for
fiscal year 1996-97 and legislative hearing minutes were reviewed to determine the Legisla-ture’s
intent for establishing the Commission.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Arizona Commission for Post-secondary
Education, the Executive Director, and the Commission staff for their cooperation
and assistance throughout the audit.
7
FINDING I
WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONTINUE
TO EXIST DEPENDS ON WHAT ROLE THE
LEGISLATURE WANTS IT TO SERVE
The Legislature needs to decide whether it wants the Commission for Postsecondary Edu-cation
to continue to develop a new role. The Commission is currently at a turning point.
The primary purpose for which it was created no longer exists, and the Commission has
begun to play an expanded role in conducting policy analysis. The Commission is also
beginning to embark on an ambitious effort to communicate the need to prepare for and
obtain a postsecondary education. Consequently, the Legislature should decide whether it
wants the Commission to perform these planned activities. If not, the Legislature should
consider sunsetting the Commission, since the Commission=s other responsibilities could be
performed more efficiently by others.
Commission Is at a Turning Point
The Commission for Postsecondary Education is currently at a turning point. The primary
purpose for which the Commission was created no longer exists. The Commission has be-gun
to conduct ambitious new efforts, including policy studies on postsecondary educa-tional
issues and a statewide early awareness campaign to educate students about the need
to obtain higher education. The Legislature should determine whether it wants the Com-mission
to perform these activities, since legislative intent is currently unclear.
Original purpose no longer exists—The Commission was created as a state agency in 1994 to
meet a federal requirement that no longer exists. In 1992, the federal government required
states receiving federal financial aid for education to establish an agency (called a State
Postsecondary Review Entity) in the statutes to review postsecondary educational institu-tions
= eligibility for federal financial aid. The State of Arizona responded by establishing the
Commission for Postsecondary Education as a state agency. Previously, the Commission
existed under executive order and as a division of the Arizona Board of Regents. At that
time, the Commission administered some federal financial aid programs and published
education guides for students. The original Commission was formed to meet a federal re-quirement,
no longer in existence, that required states to set up advisory commissions to
develop coordinated planning among public and private postsecondary institutions.
In 1995, federal funding for the State Postsecondary Review Entity Program was discontin-ued,
and the federal government stopped requiring states to perform the related activities.
8
As a result, the Commission was no longer required to review institutions= financial aid
eligibility, even though the Commission had spent much of the time since its inception de-veloping
rules for conducting such reviews.
Expanded policy analysis and communications activities planned—After the elimination of
SPRE funding in 1995, the Commission identified policy analysis and early awareness ac-tivities
as integral parts of its future efforts. In fact, the Commission=s current mission state-ment
is:
”To support and assist Arizona’s citizens and education institutions in education awareness
and in preparing students for postsecondary access and achievement through effective policy
analysis, communication, and financial aid program administration.”
The Commission hopes to expand its efforts in the policy analysis and early awareness areas
in the next few years. To date, such activities have been limited. In the policy analysis area,
the Commission has produced two policy papers, one on state demographic trends in edu-cation
and the other concerning Arizona’s educational expenditures compared to other
states. In the future, more policy studies are planned, including a study on minority student
workforce achievement in Arizona, a position paper by a business leader on the need for a
statewide vision for postsecondary education, and policy studies related to early awareness
issues. In addition, beginning in July 1997, A.R.S. §15-1852 requires the Commission to con-duct
studies related to the demand for postsecondary education.
The Commission also plans to devote much of its attention to an ambitious early awareness
campaign over the next several years. This effort represents an expansion of the Commis-sion’s
activities, which in the past were limited to the Commission publishing several post-secondary
education guides for students. Currently, the Commission is identifying
supporters for its early awareness efforts. In the next three years, the Commission plans to
raise $900,000 in private sector support for its public awareness and coalition-building ac-tivities.
The Commission has already received a $10,000 contribution from the College Board
(a private education organization), as well as a commitment for $570,000 in in-kind re-sources
such as published materials and workshops.
Unclear whether new roles reflect legislative intent—Although policy studies and early
awareness activities are central to the Commission=s future efforts, it is not clear whether
these activities reflect legislative intent. The Legislature has not appropriated any money for
either of these purposes.1 Furthermore, the Commission does not possess budget authority
to expend money for its proposed activities. Specifically, appropriations language states that
1 The Legislature did appropriate $100,000 in fiscal year 1997-98 for “planning” purposes, although it
did not make clear what such purposes include. Accordingly, it is not clear whether such money
could be used to conduct policy studies related to planning (such as enrollment demand studies).
9
“grant monies and other revenues received are for the explicit purposes designated by Spe-cial
Line Items for which state, federal, institutional, and other monies are received.” Such
special line items currently do not include policy studies or early awareness programs.
Rather, they are designated for the Commission=s financial aid programs, publication of the
Course Equivalency Guide, and personnel and general operating expenses. The Commission
has requested the Attorney General to deliver an opinion on whether the Commission does
indeed have the authority to spend money for its proposed programs.
Recent statutory changes also make it unclear whether the Legislature intends for the Com-mission
to play a large role in conducting postsecondary education policy studies. The Leg-islature
added a statute in 1996 allowing the Commission to perform some types of policy
analysis. However, the Legislature specified the topics in statute. Specifically, the Commis-sion
is required to “study the postsecondary needs of the unserved and underserved,” is-sues
related to postsecondary enrollment demand, and issues related to the effective and
efficient administration of federal and state financial aid programs. Accordingly, it appears
that some of the Commission=s recent and proposed studies may exceed statutory authority.
For example, the Commission’s study concerning Arizona’s educational expenditures com-pared
to other states and its proposed position paper on the need for a statewide vision for
education do not appear to reflect the policy topics permitted by statute.
It is also not clear whether the Legislature intended the Commission to perform its planned
early awareness efforts. A.R.S. §15-1851 only requires the Commission to “provide informa-tion
to the public about postsecondary education opportunities.” Historically, the Commis-sion
has played a relatively limited role in this area. The Commission’s planned early
awareness efforts, which involve media campaigns and a substantial fund-raising cam-paign,
are a significant expansion over past efforts. Further, these efforts draw the Commis-sion
into K-12 activities involving such things as encouraging children to stay in school.
However, statutes appear to limit the Commission=s authority to conduct K-12 activities to
the Arizona Student Program Investing Resources for Education, a financial aid program
that has never been funded.
In addition to uncertain statutory authority, the composition of the Commission itself also
calls into question whether the Legislature intends the Commission to play an expanded
role in policy analysis. The Commission is comprised mostly of representatives from the
education sector. Indeed, only 1 of the Commission=s 16 members represents the public in
general. In the 13 other states with commissions that perform postsecondary education
policy analysis, many or all of the commission members represent the general public, many
of whom are senior-level business leaders.1 Senior staff from the Florida commission stated
that diverse membership and representation from senior-level business leaders gives a
1 The other states with postsecondary education commissions that perform policy analysis are Ala-bama,
California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina,
Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Some of these commissions perform activities in addition to policy
analysis, such as administering programs.
10
commission the ability to make policy recommendations to the legislature and the governor
regarding controversial policy issues.
The composition of the Commission’s staff also calls into question how great a role the Leg-islature
intends the Commission to play in conducting policy studies. The Commission
currently does not employ any policy analysts; instead, the Commission contracts for such
studies. Conversely, 12 of the 13 other state postsecondary education commissions that
perform policy analysis employ many policy analysts to help them conduct their studies.
For example, six of the nine staff members of the Florida Postsecondary Planning Commis-sion
are policy analysts who hold doctorate degrees, enabling them to perform most policy
studies in-house.
If Planned Activities Are Not Desired,
the Legislature Should Consider
Sunsetting the Commission
If the Legislature does not wish the Commission to play a major role in studying postsecon-dary
educational policy issues or promoting early awareness, it should consider sunsetting
the Commission. The Commission would not be needed since the Commission=s financial
aid and other programs could be administered by other state agencies, one of which per-formed
some Commission activities prior to the Commission becoming a state agency. If the
Commission were sunsetted, some efficiencies could be gained and the savings could be
used to distribute more financial aid to students since most administrative expenses are
currently paid for with financial aid dollars.
Financial aid programs could be administered by others—If the Legislature does not want
the Commission to perform an expanded role conducting policy analysis and early aware-ness
programs in the future, it should consider sunsetting the Commission. Other agencies
could administer the Commission=s other programs, such as its financial aid activities. These
activities include administering two financial aid programs, coordinating the State’s college
savings plan, overseeing the State’s student loan guarantor, and providing students with
assistance in filling out financial aid application forms. For example, the Board of Regents
could administer the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program, as it did prior to the
Commission’s inception in 1994. Similarly, the Voucher Program, which gives tuition vouch-ers
to qualifying community college graduates who enroll in private four-year institutions,
could be administered by the Board of Directors for Community Colleges.
Administrative duties associated with the State’s college savings plan could also be per-formed
by others. Although the exact duties of administering this program have not yet
been defined, it appears that the State Treasurer’s Office could perform such duties, includ-ing
developing administrative rules and contracting with financial institutions to manage
11
savings dollars. The Commission also plans to promote the savings program, but the finan-cial
institutions could perform this function.
Additional financial-aid related activities, such as oversight of the State’s student loan guar-antor,
are already performed by others. The guarantor, a nonprofit loan servicer under con-tract
to the Arizona Department of Administration, guarantees that financial aid lenders will
be reimbursed if a borrower defaults on a loan. The Commission has no regulatory author-ity
over the guarantor, although it does informally meet with the guarantor to discuss loan
access issues. The guarantor’s advisory council performs a similar function. It brings to-gether
representatives from public and private postsecondary institutions with members of
the financial community to discuss the ability of postsecondary education institutions to
secure loans for their students.
Other entities also educate students about financial aid. Private providers of financial aid,
such as the Southwest Student Services Corporation, already assist students in preparing
financial aid forms. For example, during its Fall 1996 Career Expo, it helped 9,000 Arizona
students to obtain information about postsecondary education financial aid assistance.
Further, the State’s student loan guarantor, who currently donates money for the Commis-sion’s
financial aid education activities, has expressed interest in continuing to fund the
effort regardless of who administers it.
Additional functions also could be performed by others—In addition to others being able to
perform the Commission=s financial aid functions, other state agencies could also administer
various Commission functions. The Commission=s publications role could be taken over by
these entities since the Commission does little more than edit publications. For example, the
Commission publishes the Course Equivalency Guide, which lists courses that can be trans-ferred
from the community colleges to the universities. The Commission updates this guide
with information provided by the universities and community colleges. Therefore, respon-sibility
for publishing the guide could be shifted to either the Board of Regents or the Board
of Directors for Community Colleges. In fact, the Board of Regents was responsible for pub-lishing
the Course Equivalency Guide prior to the Commission becoming an agency.
The Commission’s other publications could also be produced by any of a variety of public or
private entities. Publications such as the College and Career Guide, a compilation of post-secondary
institution information, are self-supporting. Publication costs are covered through
private contributions, advertising sales, and sales of the guide itself.
If the Legislature wishes some entity to perform a single policy-related study such as the one
that it has mandated the Commission to perform on enrollment demand, it could rely on a
variety of public and private entities to perform such a study. These entities include legisla-tive
branch agencies, university research centers, and the Board of Regents. In fact, the Board
of Regents= staff has performed past studies on projected demand for public as well as pri-vate
postsecondary education.
12
Money for students could be increased—If others performed Commission activities and the
Commission were sunsetted, efficiencies could be gained and more financial aid could be
transferred to students. Currently, the Commission estimates that $219,700 of the State Stu-dent
Incentive Grant (SSIG) money it received during fiscal year 1996-97 was spent on ad-ministration.
However, the Commission currently only devotes a half-time FTE (with
occasional support from other staff) to administering this program. Commission staff state
that the remainder of the money is spent on general administrative purposes, since the
Commission receives little money directly from the State to support its administrative ex-penses.
If the Commission were eliminated, these administrative costs could be reduced by
at least $80,000 (the salary and employee-related expenses associated with the executive
director position), and more SSIG money would be available for students. An estimated 126
additional students could receive SSIG grants if administrative costs were reduced by
$80,000.
13
Recommendations
1. The Legislature should decide whether it wishes the Commission to play an expanded
role in the areas of public awareness and policy analysis. If it does, the Legislature should
consider:
a) Changing the Commission’s budget authority—If the Legislature wishes the
Commission to perform early awareness activities and policy studies, it should give
the Commission authority to raise and spend money for such activities.
b) Clarifying statutory authority—The Legislature should consider clarifying A.R.S.
§15-1851 or §15-1852 to allow the Commission some discretion to select a wide range
of policy topics, or more clearly define what topics the Commission should study. The
Legislature should also specify that it wishes the Commission to perform activities
related to K-12 education.
2. If the Legislature does not wish the Commission to perform early awareness activities
and conduct policy analysis, it should consider sunsetting the Commission for Post-secondary
Education and eliminate A.R.S. Title 15, Chapter 14, Article 5. It should then
consider assigning other agencies the responsibility for performing the following activi-ties:
Financial Aid
a) Amend A.R.S. §15-1626 to assign the Board of Regents the responsibility to administer
the State Student Incentive Grant Program.
b) Amend A.R.S. §15-1424 to assign the Board of Directors for Community Colleges the
responsibility for administering the Postsecondary Education Voucher Program and
to clearly specify methods of distributing monies from the Postsecondary Voucher
Program.
c) Amend A.R.S. §15-1871 et seq to substitute the State Treasurer as administrator of the
State’s college savings plan.
d) Amend A.R.S. §15-1626 to assign the Board of Regents the responsibility to oversee
the State’s student loan guarantor.
Publications
e) Amend either A.R.S. §15-1626 or §15-1424 to assign responsibility for production of
the Course Equivalency Guide to either the Board of Regents or the Board of Directors
for Community Colleges.
If the Legislature decides to sunset the Commission but wishes some entity to study en-rollment
demand, it should assign this task to any of a variety of public entities, such as
legislative staff, university research centers, or the Board of Regents.
14
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
15
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A.R.S. §41-2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12 factors
in determining whether the Commission for Postsecondary Education should be continued
or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose in establishing the Commission.
The Legislature established the Commission for Postsecondary Education in 1994. The
primary purpose for establishing the Commission was to meet a federal requirement
that each state have a separate agency to act as a State Postsecondary Review Entity
(SPRE). Each state’s SPRE was charged with reviewing postsecondary educational
institutions’ eligibility for federal financial aid. Prior to becoming a state agency, the
Commission previously existed under an executive order and later existed as a
division of the Board of Regents. The original Commission was created by executive
order in 1972 to meet a previous federal requirement that required states to set up
advisory commissions to develop coordinated planning among public and private
postsecondary institutions. Prior to 1994 the Commission administered some federal
financial aid programs and published postsecondary education guides for students.
At the time of its creation as a state agency, the Commission was also given several
other responsibilities. Specifically, it was charged with “consider(ing) the postsecondary
needs of unserved and underserved individuals in the state,” “provid(ing) information
to the public about postsecondary educational opportunities,” “supervising” the state’s
student loan guarantor, and administering several financial aid programs.
In 1996 and 1997, other statutory duties were added. These responsibilities include
administering the Postsecondary Education Voucher Program, conducting public
policy options related to increased postsecondary enrollment, and coordinating the
State’s college savings plan.
2. The effectiveness with which the Commission has met its objectives and pur-pose
and the efficiency with which the Commission has operated.
The Commission has performed many of its statutory duties effectively. As required by
statute, the Commission created proposed rules for implementing the SPRE. In fact, an
association of state higher education officials considered these rules to be a model for
other commissions nationwide. The Commission has also fulfilled other statutory
duties by producing several publications, distributing financial aid to postsecondary
16
institutions and individuals, and meeting informally with the State’s student loan
guarantor.
The Commission also appears to perform its activities efficiently. Nonetheless, if the
Commission were sunsetted, the Commission’s statutory duties could be
accomplished by other governmental entities, and efficiencies could be gained (see
Finding I, pages 7 through 13).
3. The extent to which the Commission has operated within the pubic interest.
The Commission has operated in the public interest by publishing informational guides
about postsecondary education for students, distributing over $3.1 million annually in
student financial aid, and helping individual students fill out financial aid forms during
a statewide annual event organized by the Commission. Nonetheless, the Commission
could increase the number of state student incentive grant dollars it gives to students.
Currently, the Commission estimates that $219,700 of the SSIG institutional match
money it receives is spent on administration. However, the Commission currently only
devotes a half-time FTE (with occasional assistance from other staff) to administering
this program. Commission staff state that the remainder of the $219,700 is spent on
general administrative purposes, since the Commission receives little money directly
from the State to support its administrative expenses. If the Commission were to limit
its administrative expenditures by limiting its activities to those specifically outlined in
statute and appropriations, more money could be devoted to the disbursement of
student aid grants. (see Finding I, pages 7 through 13).
The Commission has also performed other activities that serve public interest. It has
published two policy papers and held three policy conferences that were found
valuable by attendees representing different educational sectors. The Commission
believes its proposed early awareness efforts would also serve the public interest by
informing students and parents about how to become better prepared for
postsecondary schools.
4. The extent to which rules adopted by the Commission are consistent with the
legislative mandate.
Although its existing rules appear to be within its statutory authority, a review that
the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council performed at the Office of the Auditor
General’s request found that the Commission has not adopted sufficient rules
regarding the eligibility criteria for tuition vouchers. The criteria must include
financial need. Additionally, the Commission has not established rules specifying
application procedures and deadlines for the voucher program.
17
The Commission has also not adopted sufficient rules dealing with public appeals to
changes in Commission rules. For example, the rules do not deal with issuing of
subpoenas, administering of oath, or taking of testimony.
5. The extent to which the Commission has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has in-formed
the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public.
The Commission appears to adequately encourage public input prior to adopting
rules. While every agency is required to publish proposed rules and regulations in
the Arizona Administrative Register, the Commission also makes additional efforts to
inform the interested parties about proposed rules. Specifically, it mails each
potentially impacted Arizona educational institution notices about proposed rules
and regulations. The Commission has also complied with open meeting law
requirements. In particular, the Commission posts its meeting notices with at least 24
hours’ notice in the required locations.
6. The extent to which the Commission has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within its jurisdiction.
The Commission for Postsecondary Education does not have investigative or regul-atory
authority. However, it does respond to occasional inquiries from postsecondary
educational institutions that are concerned about their ability to obtain loan guarantees.
In its role as supervisor of the State’s loan guarantor, the Commission informally meets
with the guarantor to discuss loan access issues.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
state government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling
legislation.
This factor is not applicable because the Commission for Postsecondary Education is
not a regulatory agency with enforcement or oversight responsibilities.
8. The extent to which the Commission has addressed deficiencies in its ena-bling
statutes which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
In 1996, the Commission sought and received statutory authority allowing it to
“establish policy centers.” However, this new statutory language does not allow the
Commission to perform any type of policy study. Instead, statutes limit the type of
studies the Commission can perform. Nonetheless, the Commission has broadly
18
interpreted statutory language, conducting studies that appear to exceed its
authorization (see Finding I, pages 7 through 13).
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the Commission to
adequately comply with the factors listed in the Sunset laws.
If the Legislature decides to continue the Commission, it should clarify the
Commission’s authority (A.R.S. §15-1851) to either allow the Commission some
discretion to select a wide range of policy topics or more clearly define what topics
they should study. In addition, the Legislature should consider whether it wants the
Commission to perform early awareness initiatives. If so, the Legislature should
explicitly give the Commission authority to conduct K-12 early awareness activities.
The Legislature should also consider amending A.R.S. §15-1851 to change the
Commission’s composition by adding public or business members. The 13 other
states with commissions that conduct postsecondary education policy analysis, such
as Florida and California, include more public members than Arizona.
If the Legislature decides to sunset the Commission, the statutory changes listed in
Finding I (see pages 7 through 13) would be required.
10. The extent to which the termination of the Commission would significantly
harm the public health, safety, or welfare.
Termination of the Commission would not significantly harm the public’s health, safety,
or welfare. While many of the Commission’s activities are beneficial to the public, many
of its duties could be performed by other entities. Such activities include the
administration of financial aid programs and production of several publications (see
Finding I, pages 7 through 13).
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Commission is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be
appropriate.
The Commission for Postsecondary Education is not a regulatory agency. Therefore,
this factor does not apply.
19
12. The extent to which the agency has used private contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accomplished.
Like many other agencies, the Commission uses private contractors for a number of
purposes. It contracts with publishers to print several of its publications. It has also used
or plans to use private public relations firms to publicize several of its activities, such as
its policy analysis studies, financial aid workshops, and early awareness efforts.
The Commission also contracts with individuals to produce its policy papers. However,
the Commission has not always obtained such services properly. The Commission has
selected individuals to research and write a paper for over $19,000, without any
competitive bidding. As a result, the Commission has violated Arizona’s Procurement
Code (A.R.S. §41-2501 et seq).
20
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Agency Response
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
AGENCY RESPONSE
to
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission disagrees with the implicit conclusion, contained in the report=s
Recommendation 1, that the Commission has been operating outside of its authority. However,
if the Legislature does believe there is some ambiguity as to the Commission=s authority, the
Commission agrees with Recommendation 1 a. and b. of the Auditor General=s report, dated
October 30, 1997. The Commission disagrees with the stated conclusion in the report=s
Recommendation 2, and does not believe that the Commission should be sunsetted. The
Commission respectfully offers the following information for the Legislature=s consideration.
The mission of the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education (ACPE) is to support and
assist Arizona=s citizens and educational institutions in education awareness, and in preparing
students for postsecondary access and achievement through effective policy analysis,
communication, and financial aid program administration. The Commission=s mission statement is
based on A.R.S. '15-1851 and '15-1852.
Because the Commission is not aligned with any one education sector, it is a neutral and objective
state education agency without innate bias toward any one portion of the education community.
It is therefore the appropriate state entity to serve as a forum for community colleges, proprietary
and career schools, private and public (K-16) educational institutions to discuss issues such as
financial aid; increasing the pool of eligible students for all postsecondary educational
opportunities; enrollment growth challenges; academic articulation between community colleges
and four-year private and public colleges/universities; and the continued implementation of its
responsibilities in the financial aid, communication of postsecondary educational options to
Arizona=s citizens, and policy analysis areas.
The built-in neutrality and objectivity of ACPE are two of its strongest strengths, which also
highlight its uniqueness in the state. With direction from commissioners appointed by the
Governor, ACPE has focused its efforts on achieving its mission. The Commission has
administered and implemented the program areas and activities it has been assigned and has done
so with the utmost professionalism, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and accountability.
The Commission has been an established state-level agency since 1972, and via Federal
requirement, has been eligible to receive Federal funds since 1976, the year it began
administration of the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program. In 1972, the U.S. Congress
passed amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which included the addition of Section
1202 (Section 1202 authorized the establishment of state postsecondary commissions, thereafter
referred to as the A1202 Commissions@). When the Commission was designated as Arizona=s
A1202 Commission@ it was a division under the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR). Under
executive order in 1974, the Commission was separated from ABOR and under another executive
2
order in 1987, the Commission again became a division of ABOR. Through a bill approved by
the Arizona Legislature in 1994, the Commission was once again separated from ABOR to meet a
Federal requirement that each state have a separate state agency to act as a State Postsecondary
Review Entity (SPRE). The Commission was given formal state agency status in 1994, primarily
to meet a Federal requirement. As described above, it had already been a state-level agency since
1972. However, the Commission needed to be a separate state agency (i.e., separate from
ABOR) in 1994 to fulfill the Federal SPRE mandate. SPRE was an added responsibility, not the
sole responsibility, for the Commission and the Federal SPRE is still in effect and can be re-mandated
for continued implementation at any time, contingent upon funding.
The Commission believes that it has been successful, responsible, professional, efficient, cost-effective,
and accountable in fulfilling its statutory duties -- particularly in an environment of
uncertain program funding and administrative budgets. The Commission administers the
following twelve program areas and activities, and is the appropriate state agency to continue
their administration:
1. The State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program;
2. The Arizona Postsecondary Voucher Program;
3. The Arizona Family College Savings Program;
4. The Western Governors University (WGU) Task Force;
5. The Course Equivalency Guide and the Arizona College and Career Guide
publications;
6. The Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC);
7. The Twelve Plus Partnership (early awareness of all post-high school education
opportunities);
8. Access/Financial Aid Studies;
9. Public Policy Forums;
10.Guaranteed Student Loan Program Oversight;
11.The Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship and the Arizona Teacher Incentive
Programs; and
12.The Arizona Student Program Investing Resources for Education (ASPIRE)
Program (currently un-funded).
Because the Commission has been managed with the utmost efficiency and has always been
interested and involved in saving funds for the state, it has willingly accepted added
responsibilities for administering legislatively-mandated programs and activities without any
additional general funds (e.g. pre-planning of the Arizona Family College Savings Program,
facilitation and oversight of the Arizona Western Governors University [WGU] Task Force, and a
300% increase in Arizona Postsecondary Voucher Program awardees from Spring 1997 through
the first quarter of FY 1997/98). It is for these reasons that the Commission has been legally
mandated, through appropriations language, to use SSIG cost recovery funds to not only
administer the SSIG Program, but also to administer its other program areas and activities.
3
Additionally, the Commission=s SSIG cost recovery funds from institutional SSIG matches was
reduced from 18% ($219,700) in FY 1996/97 to 12% ($145,300) in FY 1997/98, a reduction of 6
per cent, without any sacrifice in the administration of the SSIG Program.
In FY 1996/97, the Commission=s appropriated staffing level was 7.8 FTEs, however the actual
staffing level was 6.5 FTEs -- thereby saving 1.3 FTE salaries for the state. If any one or all of
the Commission=s program areas or activities were to be transferred to other state agencies, the
Commission=s proven experience in administering them over many years will be sacrificed.
Moreover, other state entities would require at least the same number of experienced staff and at
least the same amount of administrative and office costs to implement those programs in the same
professional and prudent manner as the Commission has over the last 25 years.
Administration of the Arizona Family College Savings Program by the Commission is very clearly
itemized in SB 1055 (A.R.S. '15-1874) with no mention for instance of the State Treasurer being
the intended administrator of the program. Similarly, the intent of HB 2081 for the Arizona
Postsecondary Voucher Program is clearly for the Commission to administer it, not another state
agency. It is apparent that one of the main reasons that the Commission is designated to
administer both of these programs is due to the fact that it is the only state education agency that
is neutral and objective, without bias toward any one education sector.
As part of its mission statement goal, based on A.R.S. '15-1851 (C) (5), the Commission is
expanding, via natural extensions, its early awareness among students and parents of the
postsecondary opportunities available in the state, as well as the importance and joy of lifelong
learning. By fulfilling this mission statement goal, the number of Arizona students who seek post-high
school training and education will dramatically increase. It is clear from educational studies
that awareness of the importance of education and postsecondary opportunities needs to begin in
the third grade, because many students are lost from the system by the fourth grade. Also, a 1996
study commissioned by the Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC), a
subsidiary of the Commission, revealed that one reason students Adrop out@ of school is that they
are frequently absent from school when they are young -- in effect, they Apractice@ being drop-outs.
Moreover, in February 1997, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council held its 11th Economic
Summit where education was identified as the most pressing issue. One of the Council=s implicit
findings was that in spite of the millions of dollars that the corporate sector has provided to
worthy educational programs, there has been little overall improvement. One of the key reasons
for this is that while individual programs may be very effective, meaningful change must be
systemwide in a school district and statewide in order to have significant, lasting impact. The
lasting impact which can be achieved through increased numbers of students taking advantage of
postsecondary education is reflected in key issues for employers, such as a greater number of
qualified employees, a broader tax base, and lower crime rates, as well as key issues expressed by
all post- secondary educators, such as the need for financial aid for students (especially
disadvantaged and minority students), increasing the pool of eligible students for all
4
postsecondary institutions and easing the transfer from community colleges among all educational
institutions. All of these key issues demand that early awareness of post-high school
opportunities and options be communicated, in a variety of methods, to all citizens of Arizona.
To address these concerns and key issues, the Commission has coalesced all of its early awareness
activities and programs (i.e., communication of all postsecondary opportunities) that it has already
been implementing, and is expanding others in their natural extensions, under its communication
Aumbrella@ called the Twelve Plus Partnership.
The Twelve Plus Partnership program employs the best techniques of communication to educate
Arizona=s parents and children about the value of education, raise their expectations and standards
for a postsecondary education, and change their attitudes and behavior to embrace lifelong
learning from an early age. It aims to raise the quality of education in both rural and urban
Arizona by researching, analyzing, and evaluating the most effective educational projects and
programs from across the state and the country and appropriately disseminating and facilitating
their use throughout the state (e.g., ABest Practices Conference@).
Twelve Plus Partnership funding comes from local businesses and corporations, local and national
foundations, and local and national education organizations/institutions. The nationally respected
College Board has already committed $570,000 of in-kind contributions over three years, and
$10,000 in direct funds to the Twelve Plus Partnership. In a March 19, 1997 letter to the
Commission from the College Board=s Western Regional Office, Executive Director Richard
Pesqueira states: A.....the Commissioners are to be commended for seeking to address the growing
need for an aggressive, proactive campaign focused on increasing the early awareness among
students and their families regarding heightened academic achievement expectations, the value of
a college education, and the need to begin planning for academic success as early as possible.
Particularly noteworthy is ACPE=s emphasis on approaching this challenge on a comprehensive
statewide basis.@ Direct financial contributions, in the amount of $72,500, have also been secured
from three local sponsors (one is a large corporation, one is a well-known Arizona professional
sports team, and the third sponsor is a private student loan company). Moreover, the
Commission is viewed by the Arizona educational community and national observers as the most
credible and objective agency to facilitate the Program on a statewide basis. The Commission will
facilitate a steering committee representing key sectors, including the business sector, to provide
guidance.
The college/university affordability issue is addressed by three programs administered by the
Commission -- two of these programs are components of the Twelve Plus Partnership umbrella:
1. The State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program which awards grants to
needy students in Arizona. In FY 1996/97, the Commission awarded 4,731 grants (987 for
public universities, 3,358 for community colleges, 232 for private colleges and universities,
and 244 for proprietary schools);
5
2. College Goal Sunday, which is a statewide program providing free help (on a
one-to-one basis) to high school seniors, many of whom are first generation college
applicants, and their families in filling out the universally required Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. More than 1,560 high school seniors and their parents
left last year=s event in their community (the event was held in 17 community sites in 12
Arizona cities) with this form completely filled out and ready to deposit in the mail.
Colleges/universities and private student loan organizations hold Acollege fairs or expos@ or
Acollege nights@ throughout the year where several hundred students receive information
relative to filling out financial aid forms however, College Goal Sunday is the only
statewide event where the financial aid forms are actually filled out and ready to mail when
they leave the event. The second annual College Goal Sunday event will be held on
February 1, 1998. This particular event is a component of the Twelve Plus Partnership;
and
3. The Arizona Family College Savings Program is a statewide program which
will enable Arizona families to set aside funds for college beginning when their children are
very young. This Program is scheduled for full implementation in January 1998. It is
unique in the nation due to the fact that, currently, it is the only college savings plan that
partners the private and public sectors together. The Program=s final rules and regulations
were filed with the Secretary of State on October 31, 1997 and the RFP process is being
finalized. This particular Program is a component of the Twelve Plus Partnership.
As an example of a Twelve Plus Partnership=s expanded activity, the Commission is developing a
ABest Practices Conference@ which will bring together educators, business people, and parents
from across the state to >showcase= what is working in their school districts and schools, as well as
in communities outside of Arizona. There are several successful and exemplary activities and
programs in Arizona schools, but until now it has been difficult to share information about them.
Sharing these activities and programs will save districts, community colleges, universities, and
businesses from Are-inventing the wheel@ when planning their own particular outreach and pre-college
activities. Local businesses and corporations, local and national foundations, and local
and national education organizations want to invest both direct and in-kind financial resources
into successful early awareness/outreach activities on a statewide basis. There is now a Awindow
of opportunity@ to bring those programs that work into the limelight along with their expansion
and economic efficiencies, which is especially important to the rural and less-advantaged schools
in Arizona.
Following is a brief synopsis of four Twelve Plus Partnership activities that the Commission plans
to implement, entirely with private funding, during FY 1998/99:
Ø College Goal Sunday: As previously stated, this is an annual statewide Program
that provides free assistance to Arizona students and families applying for college
financial aid. Many of these students are first-generation college applicants. The
Program mobilizes volunteer financial-aid professionals, primarily from Arizona
6
colleges/universities, as well as high school counselors to assist seniors, on a one-on-
one basis, in completing Federal student aid forms. The Commission facilitates
the Program, and sponsorships are from private businesses/ corporations. The first
statewide College Goal Sunday event was held on February 2, 1997 (the Sunday
after the Super Bowl) at 17 community sites in 12 Arizona cities including
Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, Kingman, Sierra Vista, Tuba City, Chinle,
Show Low, Casa Grande, San Carlos, and Prescott. The second statewide
College Goal Sunday event is scheduled for February 1, 1998.
Ø Best Practices Conference: This is a one-day conference to be held in the Spring
of each year, which will feature successful and exemplary activities and programs
already in existence, both state and national, with educators, business people, and
parents from across the state. Specific areas highlighted will include, but not be
limited to: (1) School-to-Work activities (grades 8-14); (2) Parental involvement
(grades K-12); (3) Student community service (grades K-16); (4) Teacher and
counselor professional development and workshops that focus on the importance
of high expectations for all students (grades K-12); (5) Study and test-taking skills
(grades 3-14); (6) School-community partnerships (grades K-16); and (7) Early
awareness/outreach activities (grades 3-16). An additional highlight of each
Conference will be annual awards given to one teacher and one counselor from the
K-14 sector, one parent (or family member), and one corporation/business partner
for outstanding involvement and support to education, K-16.
Ø College and Career Centers: This Program will support existing local
organizations and institutions that assist students, with parental involvement, in
awareness of post-high school training and educational opportunities, preparing for
college and an economic-fulfilling career. It will also support and help facilitate
the expansion of successful, local College/Career Planning Centers already in
existence in some elementary, middle, and high schools -- as well as on
postsecondary education campuses. The Commission plans to establish six pilot
College and Career Centers (three in elementary schools and three in middle
schools) by the Fall of 1998. Schools will be selected where there is a high
percentage of minority and disadvantaged students in the student body. In keeping
with the need for parental involvement in education, parents will coordinate and
staff each Center. Materials will be developed for the Centers by the
Commission=s Early Awareness Committee. Each Center will be on the Acutting
edge@ with regards to technology, publications, computer hardware and software,
School-to-Work activities, academic and financial planning workshops, and other
post-high school planning activities.
Ø Think College: This Program is an awareness campaign, targeted in the elementary
and middle grades, directed toward raising expectations and creating an attitude
among students, parents, teachers, and counselors that a post-high
school/postsecondary educational experience is desirable and possible for most
children. A partnership between the Commission and the College Board is being
developed to coordinate this Program on a statewide basis. Program audiences
7
will include: (1) Third graders (high school class of 2009) and their parents; (2)
Seventh graders (high school class of 2003) and their parents; and (3) Juniors (high
school class of 1999) and their parents. The Program=s timeline emphasizes an on-going
public information campaign (e.g., the Arizona Family College Savings
Program, Ready for Success publication, media, etc.) with intensive multi-dimensional
information, including grade-level specific publications.
Presently, the Commission is authorized to raise funds from outside/other sources but, according
to the JLBC FY 1997/98 appropriations, cannot spend these same funds for the implementation of
specific activities/programs to fulfill the responsibilities of the goals of its mission. This is
especially true for the Twelve Plus Partnership activities. This could definitely have a very
serious negative impact on the Commission=s ability to persuade private interests to contribute to
the Commission=s of worthwhile programs. Accordingly, the Commission respectfully requests
that the Legislature authorize the Commission to not only be able to raise funds, but also be
authorized to spend those funds to implement the responsibilities of its mission.
A summary of the remaining programs administered by the Commission follows:
Financial Aid Administration
Ø The State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program, as previously explained,
assists states in providing grants to eligible students who attend postsecondary
schools and have substantial financial need. Federal allotments are made to each
state, which in turn must match the allotment through state appropriated funds.
Ø The Arizona Postsecondary Voucher Program provides $1,500 annually to
Associate Degree graduates who enroll as full-time students at an Arizona
accredited, chartered, baccalaureate degree-granting private postsecondary college
or university. The award does not exceed three years and $3,000 for each eligible
student. The purpose of the Program is to provide a financial incentive to
Arizona=s community college graduates to attend a private postsecondary
baccalaureate degree-granting institution (e.g., Grand Canyon University) rather
than an Arizona public university. In Spring 1997, 52 eligible students received
awards. Through the first quarter of FY 1997/98, 188 new eligible students
received awards and 52 renewal students received awards for a total of 240
awardees.
Ø The Arizona Education Loan Program Oversight by the Commission is
accomplished by two main methods. The Commission=s executive director meets
frequently, on an informal basis, with the Vice President of the state=s student loan
guarantor and periodic formal reports are received and reviewed by the
Commission. In addition, the Commission=s executive director is a member of the
state=s student loan guarantor=s board of directors where discussion on loan access
8
issues and voting occurs. The Commission is the only state education agency
which represents all postsecondary education sectors and, therefore is the
appropriate state agency to oversee the state=s student loan guarantor.
Ø The Arizona Student Program Investing Resources for Education (ASPIRE) is a
viable Program even though it is currently un-funded. It is a Program that is
similar to the AI Have A Dream@ project, and will be initiated in the third grade at
selected high minority, disadvantaged schools throughout Arizona. The
Commission is actively pursuing private and foundation funding for this Program
with the assistance of the Arizona Student Association.
Ø The Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship Program and the Arizona Teachers
Incentive Program. Neither of these currently receive funding, however, the
Commission is still fulfilling its obligatory responsibilities of follow-up and
collection of monies from award recipients who have not fulfilled their
responsibilities.
Policy Analysis
Ø Access/Financial Aid Studies and Public Policy Forums are periodically
conducted and hosted by the Commission. These forums bring together state and
national leaders who offer presentations relating to current and future issues in
postsecondary education. The Forums are complimentary to the public and are
taped for future distribution to interested and appropriate parties. The
Commission is the appropriate agency to conduct these activities because it
represents all postsecondary education sectors, as well as the K-12 sector.
Ø The Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC) was formed
in 1996 from its precursor, the Arizona Minority Education Access and
Achievement Cooperative (AMEACC). The Center assists and supports the state-level
governing boards and their institutions in the development of policies
designed to improve minority student achievement and access to postsecondary
institutions. This is accomplished through workshops, policy forums, fall
conferences, and publications emphasizing the unserved and underserved
populations in Arizona. See A.R.S. '15-1851 (C) (3). The 1997 AMEPAC
conferences (in Phoenix and Tucson) highlighted a policy analysis paper authored
by Bill Post, President and CEO of Arizona Public Service (APS), titled:
ACorporations & Schools: An Integrated Partnership.@ The paper addressed
Arizona=s business and education sectors as they relate to the state=s unserved and
underserved populations. The Center=s mission, under the auspices of the
Commission, is to stimulate, through studies, statewide discussion, and debate,
constructive improvement of Arizona minority students= early awareness, access,
and achievement throughout all sectors of education. Policy study papers
commissioned by the Center focus on Arizona=s unserved and underserved
populations, which also provide the basic data for enrollment growth studies. The
Commission encourages policy analysis papers to be authored by state and national
9
experts in the field of study of the particular policy analysis subject matter. This
has enabled the Commission to produce, in a cost-efficient manner, study papers
with expertise and total objectivity. Since all of the funding for AMEPAC is
derived from private and institutional funding, all of AMEPAC=s commissioned
policy analysis papers have been paid for by private funding.
Ø The Western Governors University Task Force is facilitated by the Commission,
pursuant to Executive Order 95-4, dated April 10, 1996. The Commission is
charged with the following responsibilities:
1. Consider the relation between the proposed activities of the
Western Virtual University initiative and current and proposed
activities of Arizona=s postsecondary institutions;
2.
3. Consider the postsecondary education needs of unserved and
underserved individuals within the state, including individuals
beyond the traditional college age, as well as Arizona employers,
and how those needs can be met by the Western Virtual University;
4. Consider state and national policies designed to enhance the growth
of distance education technology and programs and their effects on
enrollments within all state postsecondary sectors;
5. Consider the resources of institutions, organizations or agencies
(both public and private) within the state and among the Western
Virtual University entities needed to provide additional
postsecondary education opportunities through the virtual
university;
6. Recommend to the state how the state should effectively and
efficiently participate in the proposed Western Virtual University,
addressing such key issues as needs, curricular models, markets,
costs, timetables, joint institutional capacity, evaluation/quality
control, technology infrastructure/ alternative delivery mechanisms,
partners, and administration.
The Task Force delivered an Interim Report to the Commission and state in June
1996 and a Final Report in November 1996. The Task Force met numerous times
from May 1996 through May 1997 and held a Public Forum on May 12, 1997 at
Arizona State University. The Task Force last met on October 14th and the next
meeting is planned for mid-January 1998. The Commission has been advised by
Governor Hull that she wants the Commission to continue facilitation and
oversight of the Task Force and a new executive order will be forthcoming.
Communication
Ø The Course Equivalency Guide (CEG) is an annual Commission publication. The
10
CEG indicates how each of the three Arizona state universities accepts transfer
course work completed at each of the twenty Arizona community colleges. This
publication assists both the Arizona state universities and the community colleges
to provide a better, more accurate transfer service for students. The Commission
receives in-depth data year-round from each of Arizona=s community colleges and
public universities and then arranges the data in a readable format. The
Commission has edited, published, and distributed the CEG since 1973. During
FY 1996/97, the Commission distributed 8,000 copies of this publication
throughout the state. The Commission receives $13,200 in state funding for the
CEG. This amount does not cover the actual costs for this publication; overrun
costs are paid for by cost recovery funds.
Ø The Arizona College and Career Guide (ACCG) is an annual Commission
publication that informs the citizens of Arizona of the postsecondary educational
opportunities available throughout the state. The publication includes course
offerings, lengths of courses, and course costs for all of the various Arizona
institutions of postsecondary education. The Commission has edited, published,
and distributed the ACCG since 1974. During FY 1996/97, the Commission
distributed over 8,000 copies of this publication throughout the state. The editing,
printing, and dissemination costs of this publication are paid for by advertising
revenues and cost recoveries.
Ø Ready for Success booklets are periodically published by the Commission. In
1996, the Commission distributed 76,000 (65,000 in English and 11,000 in
Spanish) to every Arizona 8th grader. The Commission plans to edit and distribute
an updated version, as part of its Twelve Plus Partnership activities, in FY
1998/99. Funds for this publication are derived from private funding and cost
recoveries.
Ø The Twelve Plus Partnership activities/programs are designed to facilitate, on
behalf of Arizona citizens, the Arizona education sectors, and business
communities, three objectives:
1. Early awareness of all postsecondary training and education
opportunities for Arizona citizens;
7. The importance of preparation for, attendance in, and access to
postsecondary institutions by all students; and
8. Communication of higher education expectations on a statewide
level.
A synopsis of some Twelve Plus Partnership activities/programs has been detailed
previously in this response. All components will be funded by private resources.
11
The Commission disagrees with the report=s stated conclusion that it has not established rules for
eligibility criteria, application procedures, and deadlines for the Arizona Postsecondary Voucher
Program. Eligibility criteria are itemized in the Program=s rules, published in the Arizona
Administrative Code on September 30, 1996 and pursuant to A.R.S. '15-1852 et seq., in 'R7-3-
403 (C) (E) (F) (1) (G) and in 'R7-3-404 (A) and (B). Academic criteria are itemized in the
Program=s rules, published in the Arizona Administrative Code on September 30, 1996 and
pursuant to A.R.S. '15-1852 et seq., in 'R7-3-403 (E) (2). Application procedures are itemized
in the Program=s rules, per the same September 30, 1996 publication, and pursuant to A.R.S. '15-
1852 et seq., in 'R7-403 (E) (1) (F) (1) and (G) (1); deadline procedures are itemized in the
Program=s rules, pursuant to A.R.S. '15-1852 et seq., in 'R7-3-403 (F) (2) and (G) (2). The
Commission agrees that financial need criteria were not specified and will address this matter with
Senator Springer or through amendment to the Program=s rules in a timely manner.
The Commission disagrees with the stated conclusion in the report relative to the Commission not
adopting sufficient rules dealing with public appeals to changes in Commission rules. The
Commission is exempt from the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act (A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter
6), but still adopts rules in a manner substantially similar to Title 41, Chapter 6. However, if the
Legislature feels that there is some ambiguity with this issue, the Commission will address it in a
timely manner.
The Commission disagrees with the report=s stated conclusion that it has violated Arizona=s
Procurement Code, A.R.S. '41-2501 et seq. The Commission has followed rules relative to the
bidding process and has been, is, and plans to continue to be very fastidious in following all
Arizona laws, executive orders, and codes. The Commission is in frequent consultation with the
State Procurement Office, and has just recently received an increase in its delegation of authority
from $5,000 to $10,000. However, if the Legislature feels that there is some ambiguity with this
issue, the Commission will consult with the State Procurement Office in a timely manner and
resolve this issue.
The Commission considers a key element of its mission to operate within and for the public
interest. Its approved mission statement, based on A.R.S. '15-1851 (B) and (C) (1) - (5), is very
clear that it operates for the benefit of the citizens of Arizona to assure them of awareness of all
postsecondary education options and support for preparing students for postsecondary access and
achievement. The Commission believes that each additional student that succeeds in the K-16
education system will benefit the Arizona economy, the Arizona tax base, and the quality of life
for that student and the state as a whole. Each and every Commission action is focused on
whether the decision will benefit the public and whether the decision is designed to increase
access to all postsecondary sectors in Arizona. If the Commission were not in existence, the state
would lose:
Ø its only comprehensive state education agency representing all public and private
education sectors in the state for program administration, communication
(dissemination) of all postsecondary opportunities, and policy analysis;
12
Ø its only comprehensive neutral site for administration of those programs/activities
designed to assure full eligibility to students and institutions from all education
sectors; and
Ø its only neutral statutory body charged with policy analysis focusing on the
postsecondary needs of the unserved and underserved populations, issues related
to postsecondary enrollment demand, and the effective and efficient administration
of Federal and state financial aid programs.
In a letter of support from the Maricopa Community College Governing Board, dated September
12, 1997, a resolution made by the Board is quoted. The Governing Board A....fully supports the
continuance of the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education, recognizing that the loss of
the Commission would be most detrimental to the Maricopa Community College=s mission to
serve all citizens in the State of Arizona in their quest for postsecondary opportunities and a
productive, economic fulfilling life.@
The Commission received the following statement of support from the President of the Arizona
Private School Association, dated August 13, 1997: A.......The Commission is uniquely qualified to
perform its functions since it represents all sectors of the postsecondary education community.
..........The Postsecondary Voucher Program, Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center,
and the newly enacted Arizona Family College Savings Program are just a few of the important
projects that I feel would not be effective, or possibly in existence, without the administration
provided by the Commission.@
The built-in neutrality and objectivity of the Commission positions it to be the appropriate state
agency to implement its twelve program areas/activities for the citizens of Arizona. The
Commission is not aligned with any one education sector and, therefore is without any innate bias
toward any one education sector. The commissioners, appointed by the Governor, have focused
their efforts on achieving the Commission=s mission goals with un-deniable professionalism,
accountability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.
AThe College Board believes that the Commission, as the only state education agency which
represents all K-16 sectors and represents a neutral, objective forum for discussions that
contribute K-16 supportive mechanisms, is one that we want to work closely with. ........Together
we can disseminate a prototype to other states for their possible implementation.@ The College
Board, dated August 12, 1997.