environmental scan

Environmental Scan

University of Illinois

Office for Planning and Budgeting3rd Edition, November 2007

Environmental Scan: Purpose and Process

The purpose of an environmental scan is to support and inform the strategic planning process. A good environmental scan will help an organization understand and respond effectively to changes in their environments.1

• This environmental scan provides information on demographics, higher education, economic and budgetary matters, research, technology, and economic development, the political landscape, and the related implications, opportunities, and challenges for the University of Illinois.

• The University of Illinois’ initial environmental scan was developed in March 2005 to set a context for the University’s strategic planning framework. Subsequent editions of the environmental scan have updated source data for many of the charts and graphs and added elements of increasing importance (e.g., information has also been added on the topics of global competitiveness in higher education participation, completion, and attainment, energy, online education, and the impacts of the aging population).

• Because the external environment in which the University of Illinois operates is continually changing, the environmental scan will be updated and refined periodically to reflect the most recent available information on key opportunities and challenges facing the University.

• Feedback on the usefulness of the environmental scan and suggestions for improvement are welcome and encouraged. Please direct any comments or questions to the University Office for Planning and Budgeting (UOPB) via e-mail to [email protected].

1 Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. 2004.

mailto:[email protected]

Key Highlights: Opportunities

• Creatively addressing the educational, health care, and other needs of an increasingly diverse Illinois population

• Developing a niche within the rapidly developing market for online education both nationally and globally

• Responding to the growing global demand for individuals with training in the sciences and engineering

• Enhancing capacity in energy research and development (both traditional and renewable sources)

• Developing new and enhanced University revenue sources from the growing demand for higher education and R&D activities

• Effectively responding to the increased interest of state and federal policymakers in the public accountability of colleges and universities

Key Highlights: Challenges

• Maintaining and enhancing access to the University for minority, low income, and first-generation students

• Recruiting and retaining high quality faculty and staff given increasing competition and looming retirements

• Ensuring the highest level of academic quality in the face of state and federal funding constraints

• Maintaining the University’s physical environment absent new infusions of state capital funding

• Expanding the University’s R&D capacity given federal funding constraints

• Balancing interest in enhancing higher education’s public accountability with legitimate privacy concerns within the University community (students, faculty, and staff)

Table of Contents

• Demographics…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7– U.S. Population Projections, 2000-2020 8– Illinois Population Ages 18-24 Race/Ethnicity 9– University of Illinois Statewide Presence 10– Undergraduate and Graduate/Professional Enrollments by Race/Ethnic Higher Education 11– Minority Enrollment Data by Campus 12– University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by Race/Ethnicity 13– University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by Gender 14– University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by Race/Ethnicity 15– University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by Gender 16– University of Illinois SURS Participants, Tenure-System Faculty Age Distribution 17– University of Illinois SURS Participants, Non-Tenure Faculty and Staff by Age Distribution 18– Health Care and Aging 19– Implications for the University of Illinois 20

• Higher Education……………………………………………………………………………………………. 21– International Comparisons: Higher Education Attainment 22– International Comparisons: Higher Education Participation and Completion 23– Projected Percentage Change in Number of High-School Graduates from 2002 to 2009 24– University of Illinois Degrees Conferred 25– Percentage of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Gender 26– Mean Income by Quintile in Illinois 27– Faculty Salary Comparisons, IBHE Peers 28– University of Illinois Faculty and Enrollments 29– Enrollment in Online Courses 30-31– Implications for the University of Illinois 32

Table of Contents

• Economy and Budget………………………………………………………………………………………... 33– Economic Value of Higher Education 34– U.S. Economic Indicators 35-36– State of Illinois Economic and Fiscal Indicators 37– State of Illinois General Fund Appropriations by Sector FY 2007 38– State of Illinois Financial Liabilities 39– Illinois Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012 40– University of Illinois Share of State Tax Appropriations FY 1980 to FY 2007 41– University of Illinois Budget by Source of Funds 42– University of Illinois All Sources of Duns FY 1990 – FY 2007 43– The Center: The Top American Research Universities 44– Big Ten University and Foundation Endowments 45– Public Higher Education Capital Appropriation History FY 1999 to FY 2007 46– Implications for the University of Illinois 47

• Research, Technology, and Economic Development………………………………………………………. 48– Trends in Federal R&D Funding 49– Total R&D Expenditures of Carnegie Research I Institutions, FY 2004 50– University of Illinois Rank among AAU Institutions on Selected Quality Indicators 51– International Comparison: Production of Undergraduate Degrees in Natural Sciences & Engineering 52– International Comparison: Doctoral Degrees Granted in Natural Sciences & Engineering (1993-2003) 53– University of Illinois Technology Transfer: U.S. Patents 54– University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Performance Index 55– Energy Costs and Use 56– Renewable Energy 57– Implications for the University of Illinois 58

• Political Landscape…………………………………………………………………………………………... 59– Illinois House and Senate Memberships 60– Illinoisans’ Support for State Higher Education Spending Increases 61– Implications for the University of Illinois 62

• Sources………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 63

Demographics

U.S. Population Projections, 2000-2020

* Includes Native Americans, Aleutians, and persons of two or more races.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2003.

0

20

40

60

80

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

White Asian Black Hispanic Other*

Year

Millions

Ages 18-35, by Race-Ethnic Group

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Female Male

Year

Millions

Ages 18-35, by Gender

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

18 - 35 36 - 49 50 & over

Year

Millions

All Race-Ethnic Groups, by Age Group

Projected Total Number of High-School Graduates

*Actual Figure

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

3,186,940

3,042,003

3,107,931

2,983,477

2,958,908

2,952536

2,894,429*

3,195,259

Illinois Population Ages 18-24 Race/Ethnicity

2000

Hispanic13.3%

Black17.2%

Asian3.5%

American Indian0.2%

White65.8%

2020

Hispanic18.7%

Black17.8%

American Indian0.2%

Asian5.1%

White58.2%

N = 1.200M N = 1.358M

UIUC

UIC

UIS

University of Illinois Statewide Presence

On-Campus Headcount Enrollment by County, Fall 2007

University of Illinois Campus Locations

Additional Facilities

• Regional Medical Colleges– Rockford– Peoria– Urbana-Champaign

• Illinois has 102 Counties– U of I Extension serves all

102 Counties– Police Training Institute

FY 2005 students from 81 Illinois Counties

– Fire Service InstituteFY 2005 students from 99 Illinois Counties

– FY 2005 State-wide Programming Course Locations in 16 Illinois Counties

– Online Instruction accessible from all 102 Illinois Counties

– Regional Agricultural Stations

– 4-H Camps

Undergraduate Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2007

Graduate/Professional Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2007

UIC

UIC

UIUC

UIS

UIS

UIUC

Hispanic16.4%

White & Other50.1%

Black8.7%

Asian23.2%

International1.6%

Hispanic7.1%

White & Other54.2%

Black8.0%

Asian14.1%

International16.6%

Hispanic2.8%

White & Other79.6%

Black13.2

Asian3.2%

International1.2%

Hispanic1.0%

White & Other73.4%

Black8.4% Asian

1.8%

International15.1%

Hispanic6.9%

White & Other68.0%

Black6.7%

Asian12.8%

International5.6%

Hispanic5.6%

White & Other61.0%

Black5.7%

Asian10.1%

International17.6%

UIC

UIS

UIUC

Minority Enrollment Data Fall 1996 through Fall 2006

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Black Hispanic

Undergraduate

8%

10%

12%

14%

Black Hispanic

Campus Total

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Black Hispanic

Undergraduate

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Black Hispanic

Campus Total

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Black Hispanic

Undergraduate

4%

5%

6%

7%

Black Hispanic

Campus Total

University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by Race/EthnicityFall 2005 – All Fund Sources

BlackWhite Other*AsianHispanic

4% 5%

15%

69%

8%

Chicago Campus

N = 1,923

7%3%

10%

77%

4%

Springfield Campus

N = 196

4% 3%

10%

75%

8%

Urbana-Champaign Campus

N = 2,258

University of Illinois Full-Time Faculty by GenderFall 2005 – All Fund Sources

Male Female

38%

62%

Chicago Campus

N = 1,923

44%

56%

Springfield Campus

N = 196

31%

69%


N = 2,258

University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by Race and EthnicityFall 2005 – All Fund Sources

30%

13%

11%

44%

2%

Chicago Campus

N = 8,229

4% 2%1%

92%

1%

Springfield Campus

N = 451

9% 2%

3%

83%

2%


N = 7,712

11%

4%

3%

81%

1%

University Administration

N = 1,181

* Includes Native Americans, Aleutians, persons of two or more races, and non-resident aliens.

BlackWhite Other*AsianHispanic

University of Illinois Full-Time Staff by GenderFall 2005 – All Fund Sources

Male Female

67%

33%

Chicago Campus

N = 8,229

59%

41%

Springfield Campus

N = 451

54%

46%


N = 7,712

65%

35%


N = 1,181

University of Illinois SURS Participants, Tenure-System Faculty Age DistributionOctober 10, 2006

FTE

Chicago Campus w/ UIH

FTE

Springfield Campus

FTE

Urbana-Champaign Campus w/ CES

University of Illinois SURS Participants, Non-Tenure Faculty and Staff Age DistributionOctober 10, 2006

FTE

Chicago Campus w/ UIH

FTE

Springfield Campus

FTE

Urbana-Champaign Campus w/ CES

FTE


Health Care Spending % of GDP in the USA1975 - 2020

Total Spending on Health Care Per Person2005

Health Care Spending % of GDP2005

Number of Americans Over 60 by Decade

ProjectedSource: Bureau of Census

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

110,000,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

ProjectedProjectedSource: Bureau of Census

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

110,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

110,000,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20501970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Source: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/18/35044277.xls

7%

9%

11%

13%

15%

17%

19%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Projected

~77 million “baby boomers” start hitting 60 years of age in 2006

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Korea

Poland

Mex

ico

Slov

ak R

epubli

c

Czech

Rep

ublic

Finlan

dIr

eland

Turke

yLux

embo

urg

Japa

nHun

gary

Spain

United K

ingd

omIta

lyNew

Zea

land

Denm

ark

Norway

Swed

enNeth

erlan

dsAustr

alia

Icela

ndCan

ada

Greec

eAustr

iaPor

tuga

lBelg

iumGer

many

Franc

eSw

itzer

land

United St

ates

Source: OECD www.oecd.org, Health Data Statistics October 2007. *Private and public. †Adjusted for purchasing-power parity.

Total* spending on health per person at PPP†, 2005.

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

Turkey

Mex

icoPola

nd

Slovak

Rep

ublicK

orea

Hun

gary

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portu

gal

Spain

New Z

ealand

Finla

ndJap

anIta

ly

United K

ingd

omSwed

enIr

eland

Gre

ece

Denm

arkG

erman

yNeth

erla

ndsCana

daFra

nceAustr

alia

Belgium

Icela

ndAustr

iaSwitz

erland

Norway

Luxem

bourg

United S

tate

s

Source: OECD www.oecd.org, Health Data Statistics October 2007. *Private and public. †Adjusted for purchasing-power parity.

Total* spending on health per person at PPP†, 2005.

DemographicsImplications for the University of Illinois

• Illinois will experience slight population growth in coming years.• As with the rest of the U.S., Illinois’ population will become more

diverse and the Hispanic population will grow faster than any other segment.

• The proportion of African-American students at UIC and UIUC grew slightly after a period of decline, while the proportion of Hispanic students has generally grown at all three campuses in recent years. Pressure from University stakeholders to enhance diversity among students, staff, and faculty will continue.

• The over 50 population will grow rapidly. This aging population will put increasing pressure on social services and health care and may view higher education as less of a priority in the future.

• A significant proportion of the University’s tenure/tenure-track faculty are age 55 or over creating the potential for large numbers of retirements in the near future.

Higher Education

International Comparison: Higher Education Attainment

Source: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data represent the percentage of adults with an associate’s degree or higher in 2005.

7.7%

11.6%

12.2%

12.8%

12.9%

15.0%

15.2%

18.2%

19.0%

19.9%

20.1%

20.3%

24.1%

25.9%

26.2%

27.5%

28.3%

29.5%

30.0%

30.6%

32.2%

33.1%

33.9%

34.4%

35.5%

36.2%

38.4%

39.4%

40.1%

49.5%

Turkey

Czech Republic

Mexico

Italy

Slovak Republic

Portugal

Austria

Hungary

Poland

Greece

Switzerland

Germany

Luxembourg

France

Korea

Netherlands

Spain

United Kingdom

New Zealand

Ireland

Belgium

Australia

Iceland

Sweden

Norway

Denmark

Japan

Finland

United States

Canada

Ages 25-64

10.4%

14.6%

16.9%

16.9%

19.2%

20.6%

22.1%

22.7%

24.2%

25.0%

28.2%

30.9%

34.2%

36.0%

36.6%

38.7%

41.9%

42.4%

42.4%

42.8%

43.5%

44.4%

44.6%

45.3%

45.5%

47.1%

48.4%

51.1%

56.6%

60.3%

Turkey

Czech Republic

Slovak Republic

Mexico

Italy

Austria

Germany

Hungary

Portugal

Switzerland

Greece

Poland

New Zealand

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Iceland

Sweden

Australia

United States

France

Denmark

Spain

Ireland

Belgium

Finland

Norway

Korea

Japan

Canada

Ages 25-34

International Comparison: Higher Education Participation and Completion

Source: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data are for 2003.

11%

13%

18%

19%

20%

20%

23%

23%

24%

24%

25%

25%

27%

29%

30%

31%

31%

31%

34%

35%

35%

37%

37%

43%

48%

Turkey

Mexico

Switzerland

Iceland

Denmark

Slovak Republic

Germany

Austria

Sweden

Czech Republic

Norway

Portugal

Netherlands

New Zealand

Spain

Australia

France

Hungary

Poland

United States

Ireland

Finland

Belgium

Greece

Korea

College Participation

Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18 to 24) Currently Enrolled in College

12%

13%

13%

13%

13%

14%

14%

15%

16%

16%

17%

17%

17%

18%

18%

18%

19%

20%

21%

21%

23%

23%

23%

25%

26%

Italy

Finland

Germany

Austria

Turkey

Norway

Mexico

Czech Republic

Hungary

Netherlands

Poland

Spain

United States

Korea

Sweden

Slovak Republic

Iceland

France

Ireland

New Zealand

Australia

Denmark

Switzerland

Portugal

Japan

College Completion

Total Number of Degrees/Certificates Completed per 100 Students Enrolled

United States

Gain of more than 20%

Gain of 11% to 20%

Gain of 1% to 10%

Gain or loss of less than 1%

Loss of 1% to 9%

Loss of 10% or more

Source: WICHE

United States

Gain of more than 20%

Gain of 11% to 20%

Gain of 1% to 10%

Gain or loss of less than 1%

Loss of 1% to 9%

Loss of 10% or more

Source: WICHE

Projected Percentage Change in Numberof High-School Graduates from 2002 to 2009

University of Illinois On-Campus HeadcountEnrollment by State Fall 2006

154

56,337

21

12

24

16

107270

127

852

12162

10133

77

26

93

280

282

199

275

82

68

2914

32

22

345

135

147

11

12

53

87

45

250

3

6

58

3064

24

22

13

551

55

101

75

United States(AK & HI Inset)

400 to 56,337 (3)300 to 400 (4)200 to 300 (5)100 to 200 (10)

0 to 100 (28)

Illinois – 56,337 (82%)Other U.S. – 5,185 (7%)

District of Columbia - 20U.S. Territories - 50U. S. Residents with Foreign Address – 221

Non-Resident Aliens - 7,287 (11%)

University of IllinoisDegrees Conferred – FY 2007

UIUC Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Race/EthnicityFY 2007

UIS Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Race/EthnicityFY 2007

UIC Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Race/EthnicityFY 2007

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

UIC UIS UIUC

Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Professional

5,919

1,045

10,659

Black6.9%

Hispanic13.3%

Asian25.9%

White48.0%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

0.3%

Other5.7%

Black Hispanic Asian White American Indian/Alaskan Native Other

3,286

Black, 9.6%

Hispanic, 2.1%

Asian, 2.3%

White, 80.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.3%

Other, 5.4%


612

Black6.1%

Hispanic5.8%

Asian12.1%

White70.7%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

0.2%Other5.0%


7,040

Percentage of FY 2007 Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Gender

Male 46%

Female54%

UIC

Male 39%

Female61%

UIS

Male 52%

Female48%

UIUC

Male 43%

Female57%

National

FY 2005

Mean Income by Quintile in Illinois1982 to 2006

Increase in Median Income for Families by Quintile1982 to 2006

Percent of Undergraduates Who Receive MAP Awards by RaceFY 2006

$0

$40,000

$80,000

$120,000

$160,000

$200,000

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

$0

$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

In Current Dollars

Lowest Income

Highest Income

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Black Hispanic Asian White

UIC - 5,899 Awards UIS - 760 Awards UIUC - 6,422 Awards

Full-time Instructional Faculty Salary Rank, Fall 2007UIC

Full-time Instructional Faculty Salary Rank, Fall 2007UIUC

Full-time Instructional Faculty Salary Rank, Fall 2007UIS

Research I UniversitiesFull-Time Instructional Faculty Average Salaries

FY 1982 to FY 2007

Faculty Salary Comparisons, IBHE Peers

ConstantDollars

($1,000s)*

Source: American Association of University Professors; Bureau of Labor Statistics.

$7,700Gap in1982

$25,300Gap in2007

* Constant (FY 2007) dollars calculated using CPI-U (not seasonally adjusted).

55

65

75

85

95

105

115

'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07

Privates

Publics

Year

1st 21st$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140 UIUC

19th$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120UIC

12th1st 22nd

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100 UIS

14th10th1st

FTE On – Campus Enrollment per FTE Tenure – System FacultyFall 1983 to Fall 2006

FTE On-Campus Enrollment per FTE Tenure-System FacultyFall 1983 to Fall 2006

UIC


UIS


UIUC

University of Illinois Faculty and Enrollments

14.4 14.414.1

13.8 14

14.7

15.3

16.416

16.7 16.616.3 16.3 16.3 16.5

17.217.5 17.6

18

19.2 19.2 19.3 19.5 19.5

10

12

14

16

18

20

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Stu

den

ts p

er F

acu

lty

Year

15.7

16.2

15.114.9

12.7

13.7

14.5 14.5

15.515.7

14.4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Stu

den

ts p

er F

acu

lty

Year

16.8 16.817.1

17.5 17.3 17.4 17.217.6

18.018.4

19.0 19.219.6 19.5 19.7

20.2 20.420.8 20.6 20.8

21.522.0 22.2 22.2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Stu

den

ts p

er F

acu

lty

YearYear

Stu

den

ts p

er F

acu

lty

Enrollment in Online CoursesNational EnrollmentsFall 2002 to Fall 2006

At the University of IllinoisFall 1999 to Fall 2006

At Illinois Colleges and UniversitiesFall 1999 to Fall 2006

Illinois vs. University of IllinoisFY 2006

UIC48.4%

UIS31.4%

UIUC20.2%

University of Illinois

10,201 Enrollments

Other Illinois Institutions

92.0%

UIC3.9%

UIS2.5%

UIUC1.7%

Illinois

127,383 Enrollments

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006

Source: www.Sloan-c.org : “Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning,” October 2007

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006Source: www.ivc.illinois.edu/pubs/enrollment.html - Fall Internet enrollment.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006

Source: www.ivc.illinois.edu/pubs/enrollment.html - Fall Internet enrollment.

Online Learning Trends• Online enrollments have continued to grow at rates far in excess of the total higher education student

population, albeit at slower rates than for previous years.– The Almost 3.5 million students were taking at least one online course during the fall 2006 term; a nearly 10

percent increase over the number reported the previous year.– The 9.7 percent growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the 1.5 percent growth of the overall higher

education student population. – Nearly twenty percent of all U.S. higher education students were taking at least one online course in the fall of

2006.

• Improving student access is the most often cited objective for online courses and programs. Cost reduction is not seen as important.

• Approximately one-third of higher education institutions account for three-quarters of all online enrolments. Future growth will come predominately from these and similar institutions as they add new programs and grow existing ones.– Much of the past growth in online enrollments has been fueled by new institutions entering the online learning

arena. This transition is now nearing its end; most institutions that plan to offer online education are already doing so.

– Future growth in online enrollments will most likely come from those institutions that are currently the most engaged; they enroll the most online learning students and have the highest expectations for growth.

Source: Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. The Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp

Higher EducationImplications for the University of Illinois

• U.S. competitiveness in higher education participation, completion, and attainment, while still strong, is slipping relative to other developed and developing nations.

• The college age population will grow nationwide, but this growth will vary greatly among regions. The West, Southwest, and Southeast will experience growth that will exceed capacity in public higher education, although in general the Midwest will not.

• A larger percentage of women are attending higher education than men and the gap is increasing.

• Competition from proprietary institutions and other non-traditional educational providers in the marketplace for students (both nationally and internationally) has greatly increased in recent years.

• Growth in faculty compensation at private institutions has surpassed public universities, and the intense competition for faculty will continue.

• Relatively flat incomes at the lower income brackets in recent years will have implications for tuition and financial aid policies particularly with regard to promoting access for low income and first-generation students.

• Rapid technological innovation has led to a need for lifelong learning that will allow individuals to continuously adapt and update skills. On-line instruction has grown rapidly in the last 10 years as it has gained mainstream acceptance due to increasing internet access and innovations in instructional technologies.

Economy and Budget

The Lifetime Expected Value of a Bachelor’s Degreeis Rising Compared to a High School Diploma

Median Income by Educational Achievement(Males)

CUMULATIVE LIFETIME EXPECTED EARNINGS(Dollars in Millions)

Males Females

Value of Higher Education

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Bachelor's Premium High School

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

24 34 44 54 64 74

Doctorate

Professional

Master’s

Bachelor’s

Associate’sH.S. Graduate

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

24 34 44 54 64 74

DoctorateProfessional

Master’sBachelor’s

Associate’s

H.S. Graduate

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

Men Women

1980 2006

Dol

lars

in M

illio

ns

Cumulative Inflation Increases

Target Federal Funds Rate

Gross Domestic Product Annual Change

U.S. Economic Indicators

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

-15%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

105%

120%

135%

150%

165%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

GDP

HEPI

CPI

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

7.5%

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Office of Management and Budget

Increase in U.S. Health Insurance Premiums Compared to Other Indicators 1988 - 2006

U.S. Economic Indicators

Source: U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, WSJ 6/10/04.

$33.00

$22.50 $22.10

$20.20 $19.40$18.60

$8.40

$5.20

$2.70

$0.90

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Germany U.S. France Japan Canada U.K. SouthKorea

Taiwan Mexico China

Source: U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, WSJ 6/10/04.

$33.00

$22.50 $22.10

$20.20 $19.40$18.60

$8.40

$5.20

$2.70

$0.90

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Germany U.S. France Japan Canada U.K. SouthKorea

Taiwan Mexico China

Relative Labor Costs Among Major Auto-Producing Nations(in dollars per hour)

12.0%

18.0%

14.0%

8.5%

0.8%

5.3%

8.2%

10.9%

12.9%

13.9%

11.2%

9.2%

7.7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Health Insurance Premiums Workers' Earnings Overall Inflation

Source: The Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Benefits 2006 Annual Survey.

Cumulative Growth FY 1990 – FY 2008

University of IllinoisFlash Index Data

State of IllinoisState-Supported Principal Outstanding

End-of-Year FY 1996-2007(Dollars in Billions)

State of IllinoisGeneral Obligation Debt Service

Principal and Interest

State of Illinois Economic & Fiscal Indicators

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008*

Interest Principal

$621.7$674.7 $686.2 $690.8 $717.2

$790.5$851.5

$973.4

$1,595.0

* The FY 2007 and FY 2008 debt service are GOMB Budget estimates.

$1,412.4

$1,670.8$1,649.4

$1,753.7

-15%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

105%

120%

135%

150%

165%GDP

State GRF

Public Univ. GRF

CPI

153.6%

128.8%

FY02 to FY08 exclude $45 million in payments to CMS from Universities for Health InsuranceSource: Illinois State Budgets (FY08 is based on the Governor’s Proposed Budget)

65.1%

26.7%

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

Source: IGPA, U of I

Values above 100 represents Economic Growth

Growth GrowthNo Growth

State of IllinoisGeneral Fund Appropriations by Sector – FY 2008

State Tax AppropriationsChanges by Agency

State Tax AppropriationsHigher Education vs. Elementary/Secondary Education

Human Services20.4%

Elementary/Secondary

31.4%

Healthcare and Family

Services29.7%

Higher Education

7.9%

Public Safety5.5%

Other5.1%

$28.4 Billion

State By Sector

Source: Illinois State Budget, FY 2008 as introduced.

Individual Income Tax

30.2%

Corporate Income Tax

5.5%

Sales Tax24.0%

Federal Aid16.3%

Public Utility3.5%

Lottery & Gaming

4.6%

Gross Receipts

8.3%

Other Sources

7.6%

Sources of General Revenue Fund

-45%

-30%

-15%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%In Constant 2007 Dollars (CPI)

Human Services

Elem/Sec

Higher Educ.

All Other

State Average

64.9%

38.6%

-17.6%-25.3%

62.9%

FY02 - FY08 exclude $45 M from Higher Education for Health Insurance payment to CMS.

-35%

-15%

5%

25%

45%

65%In Constant 2007 Dollars (CPI)

Elem/Sec

Higher Educ.-17.6%

62.9%

FY02 - FY08 exclude $45 M from Higher Education for Health Insurance payment to CMS.

Illinois Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012

2.8%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

3.0%

3.0%

3.1%

3.2%

3.5%

3.7%

Computer Syst. Design & Serv.

Internet, Web & Data Processing

Outpatient Care Centers

Electronics & Appliance Stores

Health Practitioners Offices

Child Day Care Serv.

Internet Publish. & Broadcast.

Ambulatory Health Care Serv.

Mgmt., Sci. & Tech. Serv.

Home Health Serv.

Fastest Growing Industries

Avg. ann. change

3.3%

3.3%

3.4%

3.5%

3.6%

3.8%

3.8%

4.0%

4.1%

4.5%

Haz. Mat. Removal Worker

Phys. Therap. Asst.

Veterinary Technician

Home Health Aides

Med. Rec. & Health Info. Techn.

Physician Asst.

Fitness Train./Aerobics Instr.

Social & Human Serv. Asst.

Network & Data Comm. Analyst

Medical Asst.

Fastest Growing Occupations

Avg. ann. change

Source: Illinois Department of Employment Security

3.6%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

4.4%

4.5%

4.5%

4.5%

5.3%



Water, Sewage & Other Systems


Indiv., Family, Voc. & Rehab. Serv.

Employment Serv.


Community Elder & Resid. Care


Software Publishing


Avg. ann. change

4.5%

4.5%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

4.9%

4.9%

5.7%

5.9%

Phys. Therap. Asst.

Software Engineer, Systems

Software Engineer, Applications

Phys. Therapist Aide


Home Health Aide


Physician Asst.


Medical Asst.


Avg. ann. change

U.S. Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012

2.8%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

3.0%

3.0%

3.1%

3.2%

3.5%

3.7%



Outpatient Care Centers

Electronics & Appliance Stores

Health Practitioners Offices


Internet Publish. & Broadcast.



Home Health Serv.


Avg. ann. change

3.3%

3.3%

3.4%

3.5%

3.6%

3.8%

3.8%

4.0%

4.1%

4.5%


Phys. Therap. Asst.


Home Health Aides


Physician Asst.




Medical Asst.


Avg. ann. change

3.3%

3.3%

3.4%

3.5%

3.6%

3.8%

3.8%

4.0%

4.1%

4.5%


Phys. Therap. Asst.


Home Health Aides


Physician Asst.




Medical Asst.


Avg. ann. change

Source: Illinois Department of Employment Security

3.6%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

4.4%

4.5%

4.5%

4.5%

5.3%






Employment Serv.




Software Publishing


Avg. ann. change

3.6%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

4.4%

4.5%

4.5%

4.5%

5.3%






Employment Serv.




Software Publishing


Avg. ann. change

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics4.5%

4.5%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

4.9%

4.9%

5.7%

5.9%

Phys. Therap. Asst.





Home Health Aide


Physician Asst.


Medical Asst.


Avg. ann. change

4.5%

4.5%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

4.9%

4.9%

5.7%

5.9%

Phys. Therap. Asst.





Home Health Aide


Physician Asst.


Medical Asst.


Avg. ann. change

U.S. Projected Employment Growth, 2002-2012

University of IllinoisPayments on Behalf

Average Compounded Annual IncreasesFY 1990 – FY 2008

State of IllinoisGeneral Fund Appropriation – FY 2008

University of IllinoisShare of State Tax Appropriations

FY 1980 to FY 2008

SURS0.2%

Community Colleges14.1%

Other Public Universities

27.9%

Student Aid19.5%

All Other6.8%

U of I31.5%

Sources: IBHE tables for Higher Education - final budget as signed by Governor.

Note: Health Insurance redirection of $45 million has been moved from Public Universities to All Other.

$2.2 Billion

7.5%

1.3%

3.3%2.8%

3.6%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

GeneralUndergraduate

Tuition Rate

StateAppropriations

(GRF)

StateAppropriations +Undergraduate

Tuition Revenue

CPI DirectAppropriations +

Payments on BehalfCPI: Consumer Price Index, BLS

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

FY02 – FY08 excludes $45 million reduction to Universities for Health Insurance

2.4%$696.6M

$1,291.1M

$594.5M

RetirementFringe

BenefitsHealth

Insurance Total % Change1990 $39,573.5 $29,300.1 $68,873.61991 34,823.7 39,976.4 74,800.1 8.6%1992 34,388.5 39,151.6 73,540.1 -1.7%1993 31,730.3 40,936.2 72,666.5 -1.2%1994 32,266.0 65,845.6 98,111.6 35.0%1995 35,069.2 62,447.3 97,516.5 -0.6%1996 49,543.7 90,252.7 139,796.4 43.4%1997 63,881.4 95,138.7 159,020.1 13.8%1998 81,625.3 103,342.2 184,967.5 16.3%1999 87,425.1 112,200.3 199,625.4 7.9%2000 90,606.5 127,261.8 217,868.3 9.1%2001 94,267.3 154,420.1 248,687.4 14.1%2002 99,014.4 157,024.2 24,893.2 280,931.8 13.0%2003 112,980.6 169,170.4 24,893.2 307,044.2 9.3%2004 727,269.3 210,084.4 24,893.2 962,246.9 213.4%2005 114,279.8 232,952.6 24,893.2 372,125.6 -61.3%2006 70,462.8 257,464.0 24,893.2 352,820.0 -5.2%2007 107,981.7 268,675.0 24,893.2 401,549.9 13.8%

CompoundedAnnual Rate 6.1% 13.9% 10.9%

Note: 2004 includes proceeds from bond sale.

University of IllinoisBudget by Source of Funds

FY 1980, FY 2008 and Projected FY 2018

State Taxes18.6%

Payments on Behalf

11.3%

Tuition15.4%

Grants/ Contracts

26.8%

AFMFA0.5%

Hospital/ Medical14.0%

Auxiliaries13.4%

Tuition21.4%AFMFA

0.7%

Auxiliaries10.9%

Grants/ Contracts

24.9%

Payments on Behalf

15.3%

State Taxes11.0%

Hospital/ Medical15.8%

Payments on Behalf

4.6%

Tuition5.7%

Hospital/Medical10.9%

State Taxes44.5%

Grants/ Contracts

20.4%

Auxiliaries13.9%

FY 1980 Projected FY 2018

$641.7 Million $7,499.5 Million

FY 2008

$3,899.8 MillionBased on FY 1996-2008 Trends.

University of IllinoisAll Source of Funds FY 1990 – FY 2008

(Dollars in Millions)

University of IllinoisAll Source of Funds as a % of Total Budget

FY 1990 – FY 2008

University of IllinoisCumulative GrowthFY 1990 – FY 2008

State & Tuition Pay for Instructional FunctionExpenditures by Function FY 2006

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

GRF/EAF

Income Fund

Institutional Funds

Self Supporting

Gifts/Grants/Contracts

Hospital

Payments on Behalf

Sources: Budget Summary for Operations, state payments on behalf, and RAMP. Waivers excluded.

FY90-FY95 state funds adjusted to include UIS. GRF for FY02 – FY08 exclude $24.9 million for Health Insurance, Payments on Behalf adjusted to include the $24.9 million.

AFMFA

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08Sources: Budget Summary for Operations, state payments on behalf, and RAMP. Waivers excluded.

FY90-FY95 state funds adjusted to include UIS. GRF for FY02 - FY08 exclude $24.9 million for Health Insurance, Payments on Behalf adjusted to include the $24.9 million.

State Funds

Income Fund

Institutional Funds

Hospital


Self Supporting

Payments on Behalf

AFMFA

0%

75%

150%

225%

300%

375%

450%

525%

600%

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

State Funds

Income Fund

Institutional Funds

Hospital


Self Supporting

Payments on Behalf

Sources: Budget Summary for Operations, state payments on behalf, and RAMP. Waivers excluded.

FY90-FY95 state funds adjusted to include UIS. GRF for FY02 – FY08 exclude $24.9 million for Health Insurance, Payments on Behalf adjusted to include the $24.9 million.

$501.4

$188.4$143.1 $132.0

$72.7$46.7 $44.3 $37.7 $53.4

$17.6

$40.6

$74.9

$18.6

$484.2

$254.3

$509.4

$45.0

$70.3

$239.2

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

Non-State

State & Tuition

(Dollars in Millions)

Total Endowment-Equivalent Adjusted for Student FTE EnrollmentUniversities with More Than $20 Million in Federal Research in Rank Order

The Center: The Top American Research Universities(August 2002)

2005 Adjusted Total Endowment-EquivalentBased on The Center’s MethodologyUIUC – Peer Institutions (in billions)

2005 Adjusted Total Endowment-EquivalentBased on The Center’s Methodology

UIC – IBHE Peer Institutions (in billions)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

MichiganStanford

Minnesota

Berkeley

Ohio StateNorthwestern

Texas

Iowa

UIUC

UIC

Chicago

Arizona State

ColoradoOregon State

Private (N=39)

Public (N=80)

Rank Among All 119 Research Universities

Adj

uste

d T

otal

End

owm

ent-

Equ

ival

ent (

in B

illio

ns)

12 Private

8 Public

12 Private

8 Public

12 Private

8 Public

12 Private

8 Public

12 Private

8 Public

12 Private

8 Public

Harvard off-scale at $31.1 Billion• An Annual Report from The Lombardi Program on Measuring

University Performance• Intended to assess the relative economic strength of research

universities• Evaluated universities based on the market value of their

endowments and an endowment equivalent calculation for other revenue streams– Endowment equivalent is the amount of endowment that would be

required to generate the revenue stream (assuming a 4.5% growth)– Revenue streams included annual giving, tuition and fees, and state

appropriations– Adjusted for size based on student enrollment– Used FY 1999 data

• Public institutions can compete with private institutions because of the significant state support received

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

Yale

Mich

igan

Pennsy

lvania

Wisc

onsin NYU

UCLA

Colum

biaUSC

Berkele

y

Wash

ingt

on

Johns H

opkin

s

North C

arolin

a

Northew

ester

nDuke

Chicago

UIUC

Texas

Wash

ingt

on U

niv.

UCSD

Brown

Roches

ter

Endow Asset Market Value Endow-Equiv Annual Giving

Endow-Equiv State Appn Endow-Equiv Tuition and Fees

UIUC

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Florid

a

UC Davis

Mich

igan Sta

te

Mary

land, C

olleg

e Park

Arizon

a

Georg

ia

Temple

Utah

ASU

VPI and Sta

te

Massa

chuset

ts

Delawar

e

UC Irvin

e

Florid

a Sta

teUIC

UC Santa B

arbara

Wayn

e Stat

e

Hawaii

Virgin

ia, C

ommonwea

th

Orego

n

Verm

ont

UC Riv

ersid

e

Endow Asset Market Value Endow-Equiv Annual Giving

Endow-Equiv State Appn Endow-Equiv Tuition and Fees

UIC

2005 annual giving data was not available for Wayne State. We used 2001 data as a proxy for 2004.

Big Ten University and Foundation Endowments(Dollars in Billions)

Percentage Growth from 1995-2006FY 2006

Annual Change in Endowment SpendingBig Ten University and Foundation Endowments

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$62006 2005 1995 1985

Source: NACUBO Endowment Study FY 2006.

$5.7

$5.1

$2.2$2.0

$1.7$1.5

$1.3 $1.3 $1.3$1.0

$0.8

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6


0%75%

150%225%300%375%450%525%600%675%750%825%900%975%


-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

12.2 %Compounded Annual Rate

Public Higher Education Capital Appropriation HistoryFY 1999 to FY 2007

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total Debt by Type Total Debt by Campus

U of I Capital AppropriationsFY 1995 to FY 2007(Dollars in Millions)

U of I SIU Other Public ICCB Other Total

FY 1999 37,310.10$ 14,274.70$ 33,877.40$ 52,041.90$ 1,310.00$ 138,814.10$

FY 2000 80,685.60 29,938.50 99,474.90 96,189.30 11,000.00 317,288.30

FY 2001 46,821.90 42,573.80 52,231.50 63,532.50 415.00 205,574.70

FY 2002 165,949.40 22,730.00 104,957.00 75,736.40 2,000.00 371,372.80

FY 2003 126,335.00 30,072.10 45,311.30 80,679.20 13,943.80 296,341.40

FY 2004 12,735.00 5,752.50 34,137.40 59,107.60 - 111,732.50

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

NO APPROPRIATIONS

NO APPROPRIATIONS

NO APPROPRIATIONS

$21.1

$80.7

$30.5

$0.0

$27.8

$46.8

$165.9

$140.1

$12.7

$41.8

$0.0$0.0 $0.0$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Repair & Renovation Regular Capital Designated Projects

$21.1

$80.7

$30.5

$0.0

$27.8

$46.8

$165.9

$140.1

$12.7

$41.8

$0.0$0.0 $0.0$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Repair & Renovation Regular Capital Designated ProjectsRepair & Renovation Regular Capital Designated Projects

Dollars in Millions

$387.0 $385.5 $422.2

$692.4

$803.1

$1,018.1

$1,098.7$1,131.0

$1,202.2

$1,322.2

$1,543.5

Dollars in Millions

$387.0 $385.5 $422.2

$692.4

$803.1

$1,018.1

$1,098.7$1,131.0

$1,202.2

$1,322.2

$1,543.5

Economy and BudgetImplications for the University of Illinois

• The economic value of higher education to the individual – especially those with post-baccalaureate degrees – continues to grow.

• The U.S. economy will continue to grow, but at a slower rate. Health care costs continue to grow at a more rapid rate than general inflation and earnings which has an impact on both the national economy and governmental spending at all levels.

• The state’s fiscal situation, while somewhat improved, faces continued challenges in the coming years. Health care and pension obligation costs are expected to continue rising rapidly and will likely outpace any state revenue growth realized resulting in continued constraints on “discretionary spending” in the state budget (e.g., higher education).

• The state has greatly increased its debt burden in the last four years creating a reluctance among state policymakers to fund additional capital improvements. At the same time, the University must increasingly rely on internal sources for funding capital projects which in turn has contributed to increased debt service levels.

• The University has become more reliant on multiple revenue streams and state policymakers may interpret this trend as meaning the University can more easily absorb reductions or at least flat funding in the general appropriation.

Research, Technology, and Economic Development

Federal R&D Budget Proposal(Dollars in Millions)

Federal Outlays for R&DNational Science Foundation

Annual Percentage Change

Federal Outlays for R&DAll Agencies


Federal Outlays for R&DNational Institute of Health


Trends in Federal R&D Funding

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 % ChangeActual Estimate Estimate 2007-2008

73,043$ 75,481$ 72,935$ -3.4%26,695 26,974 27,580 2.2%7,529 9,174 10,114 10.2%1,156 1,241 1,409 13.5%3,707 3,943 3,894 -1.2%1,779 1,795 1,734 -3.4%8,886 9,533 9,345 -2.0%

122,795$ 128,141$ 127,011$ -0.9%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Total Research and Development Expenditures of Carnegie Research I Institutions, FY 2005

Page 50

Quartile 1 Quartile 2

Rank Institution Total Rank Institution Total

1 Johns Hopkins University $1,443,792 24 University of Pittsburgh, All Campuses $510,943

2 University of Michigan, All Campuses $808,887 25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $499,711

3 University of Wisconsin-Madison $798,099 26 Harvard University $447,196

4 University of California-Los Angeles $785,625 27 University of Southern California $445,036

5 University of California-San Francisco $754,444 28 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $441,033

6 University of California-San Diego $721,035 29 Yale University $431,618

7 Stanford University $714,897 30 Georgia Institute of Technology, All Campuses $425,386

8 University of Washington - Seattle $707,519 31 University of Texas at Austin $410,981

9 University of Pennsylvania $654,982 32 Northwestern Univ $387,242

10 Duke University $630,752 33 Purdue University, All Campuses $364,986

11 Pennsylvania State U, All Campuses $625,764 34 Louisiana State Univ, All Campuses $356,828

12 Ohio State University, All Campuses $608,923 35 Vanderbilt University $350,433

13 Cornell University, All Campuses $606,804 36 University of Rochester $345,337

14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology $580,742 37 University of Maryland at College Park $338,648

15 University of California-Berkeley $554,551 38 University of Iowa $334,144

16 Texas A&M University, All Campuses $552,897 39 Michigan State University $333,735

17 University of Minnesota, All Campuses $548,873 40 Emory University $333,665

18 University of California-Davis $546,978 41 University of Nebraska Central Admin Sys Off $333,126

19 Columbia University in the City of New York $535,424 42 Case Western Reserve University $323,618

20 Washington University $531,846 43 University of Alabama at Birmingham $318,536

21 University of Florida $530,734 44 University of Illinois at Chicago $318,279

22 University of Arizona $530,233 45 University of Georgia $316,806

23 University of Colorado, All Campuses $517,067 46 Rutgers the State Univ of NJ, All Campuses $309,531

Source: National Science Foundation

Note: Totals reported in thousands.

No. Doctorates Awarded

USDA Obligations

State/Local R & D Spending

Federal R & D Spending

No. Faculty Citations

No. Post doctorates


Chicago Campus

University of Illinois Rank Among AAU Institutions on Selected Quality Indicators

Sources: National Science Foundation—USDA Obligations, State/Local and Federal R & D spending, No. Post doctorates; IPEDS—No. Doctorates; Thomson ISI—No. Faculty Citations.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06

Year

Rank(N = 61)

1

- Actual -

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06

Year

Rank(N = 61)

1

- Per 100 Faculty -

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06

Year

Rank(N = 61)

1

- Per 100 Faculty -

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06

Year

Rank(N = 61)

1

- Actual -

61

International Comparison: Production of Undergraduate Degrees in Natural Sciences and Engineering

Note: Natural sciences include physical, biological, earth, atmospheric, ocean, agricultural, and computer sciences, and mathematics. Data include terminal undergraduate degrees only (e.g., bachelor’s degrees). Source: National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.

Number of Degrees Per 100 24-Year-Olds

0.7

1.8

1.9

2.2

3

5

5.7

7.7

11.8

Sub-Saharan Africa

Middle East

South America

Asia

All Regions

North/Central America

U.S.

Europe

Oceania (Australia, NZ)

International Comparison: Doctoral Degrees Granted in Natural Sciences and Engineering (1993 – 2003)

Notes: Natural sciences include physical, biological, earth, atmospheric, ocean, agricultural, and computer sciences, and mathematics. Data for China ends in 2001. Data for all countries include degrees granted to both native and foreign national students.Source: National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

China Germany India Japan

Taiwan United Kingdom United States

University of Illinois Technology TransferU.S. Patents

Applications Filed FY 1999 – FY 2007

Issued FY 1999 – FY 2007

Technology Disclosures FY 1999 – FY 2007

Licenses & Options Executed FY 1999 – FY 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

UIC UIUC Total

0

50

100

150

200


UIC UIUC Total

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


UIC UIUC Total

0

50

100

150

200


UIC UIUC Total

University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Performance Index2000 - 2004

Rank Institution Name

1. Massachusetts Inst. Of Technology (MIT)

2. University of California System

3. California Institute of Technology

4. Stanford University

5. University of Florida

6. University of Minnesota

7. Brigham Young University

8. University of British Columbia

9. University of Michigan

10. New York University

11. Georgia Institute of Technology

12. University of Pennsylvania

13. University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana-Champaign

14. University of Utah

15. University of Southern California

16. Cornell Research Fdn., Inc.

17. University of Virginia Patent Fndtn.

18. Harvard University

19. University of California, San Francisco

20. North Carolina State University

21. SUNY Research Foundation

22. W.A.R.F./University of Wisconsin

23. McGill University

24. University of Washington/Wash. Res. Fdn.

25. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Overall Score

100.00

96.59

92.94

92.65

86.11

85.55

85.41

84.23

82.54

81.63

80.95

80.83

80.35

79.40

79.28

78.69

78.52

77.68

77.19

76.94

76.90

76.86

76.80

76.54

76.00

SOURCE: Milken Institute. Mind to Market: A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer and Commercialization. September 2006.

Brief Methodology Description

The purpose of this index is to show performance in the overall commercialization pipeline, including all research fields. The four criteria (outcome measures) that factor into the overall score are Patents Issued, Licenses Executed, Licensing Income, and Startups. A weighted average of the scores in these areas was computed. The Licensing Income and Startups scores received the highest weights since they are the most direct outcome measures. The overall scores have been re-benchmarked to 100 in order to form an index.

Energy Use Projections

Energy CostsCumulative Increases

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%Wellhead

Natural Gas

Anthracite

Texas WTI Crude

Source: Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov)

Total UI Utility Production Cost

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html

Renewable Energy’s Role in U.S. Supply Illinois’ Renewable Energy Presence

• Wind is the world’s fastest growing energy technology.

• Illinois currently has 6 ethanol plants in operation and 1 under construction.

• Illinois corn is used to produce 40% of the ethanol consumed in the U.S.

• Investment by the ethanol industry in Illinois exceeds $1 billion, generating 800 jobs in plant operations and 4,000 jobs in the industry-related service sector.

• ADM is the largest producer of fuel ethanol in the U.S.

• UI’s Renewable Energy Efforts:

– UIUC will build 3 wind turbines on the South Farms to provide electricity and serve as a demonstration to farmers (2007).

– UIUC’s new business building will be its first sustainable building, utilizing solar panels and other clean technologies.

Source: Illinois Corn Growers Association. http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/EthanolFact/ethanolfact.html Illinois’ Nuclear Presence

OECD Renewable Energy Supply Growth

Figure 1: The Role of Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2006Source: Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004

Mill

ion

tons

of o

il eq

uiva

lent

(Mto

e)

Hydro Geothermal Solar, Tide, Wind, etc. Combustible Renewables and Waste

Source: OECD. http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=9713047/cl=19/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/05-01-05-g01.htm

• Illinois has 6 nuclear power plants, the largest family of nuclear facilities in the Nation.

• Over half of Illinois’ power is derived from nuclear.• Illinois’ nuclear generation capacity is greater than any other

state and all but seven world nations.

• Illinois is also home to the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab).

– Argonne has a long history of research and development in nuclear reactor technology.

– Fermilab conducts research on the frontier of high energy physics and related disciplines.

– University of Illinois faculty have a history of collaboration with researchers at both facilities.

Source: Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/illinois.htm

http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/EthanolFact/ethanolfact.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html

http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=9713047/cl=19/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/05-01-05-g01.htm

http://www.energy.gov/illinois.htm

Research, Technology, & Economic DevelopmentImplications for the University of Illinois

• Federal R&D spending has slowed significantly in recent years and this pattern is likely to continue in the near term due to the slowing economy and other significant pressures on the federal budget (e.g., defense, homeland security).

• The bedrock of economic development through research and technology commercialization are top quality science and engineering faculty and students. Intense competition for science and faculty and students nationally and internationally coupled with stagnant state and federal funding will create serious challenges for major research institutions such at the University of Illinois as they attempt to maintain and enhance the quality and competitiveness of their research programs and technology commercialization endeavors.

• Land grant and other major research universities are increasingly expected to have technology transfer as a key part of their overall economic development mission. The University’s efforts in this area have grown considerably in recent years although many technical and competitive opportunities (and challenges) remain.

• Global interest in renewable energy sources will continue to grow in the future due to the overall increase in demand and continued concerns about the cost and supply of fossil fuels and other traditional energy sources. The University has an opportunity to take a leadership role in energy research and development given its proximity to traditional (e.g., coal, nuclear) and renewable (e.g., biomass, wind) energy sources and its fundamental strengths in science and engineering disciplines.

Political Landscape

67

51

0 20 40 60 80

Republican

Democrat

Illinois House of Representatives Membership

37

22

0 10 20 30 40

Republican

Democrat

Illinois Senate Membership

Independent

Source: Illinois General Assembly Web site.

Source: Office of the Clerk, U.S House of Representatives Web site.

49

49

2

0 20 40 60

Republican

Democrat

U.S. Senate Membership

Independent

233

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

U.S. House of Representatives Membership

Republican

Democrat

* Excludes two vacancies.

Source: US Senate Statistics party division. history Web site.

17%

22%

35%

35%

49%

59%

62%

57%

58%

63%

75%

20%

22%

36%

37%

52%

55%

58%

59%

60%

64%

67%

78%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Prisons

Building new roads

Repair roads

Job training for employed

Environment

Low-income families

Job training for unemployed

Public health

Higher education

Medical care

Financial Aid for IL College Students

Public schools K-12

2006

2005

Illinoisans’ Support for State Higher Education Spending Increases, 2005-2006

Source: Northern Illinois University, 2005 and 2007 Illinois Policy Survey

42%

47%

47%

56%

59%

66%

67%

67%

72%

73%

78%

80%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Public transportation

Protecting open spaces

Public safety

Preschool

Higher education

Job training

Economic development

Protecting air & water

Public health

TANF

Medical care

Public schools K-12

Illinoisans’ Willingness to Pay to Maintain Service Levels, 2004

Illinoisans’ Support for State Higher Education Spending Increases, 2006

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Southern IL

Central IL

Northern IL

Collar Counties

Suburban Cook

Chicago

StatewideRegion

48%

47%

57%

60%

62%

75%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

65 +

55 - 64

45 - 54

35 - 44

25 - 34

18 - 24Age

56%

61%

56%

60%

75%

64%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Over $150,000

$100,000 - $149,999

$56,000 - $99,999

$35,000 - $55,999

$21,000 - $34,999

Under $21,000Income

55%

69%

72%

88%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

White

Black

Asian

Other

Race

88%

57%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

Ethnicity

58%

61%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Male

Female

Gender

60%

61%

59%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

High school or less

Some college

College graduateEducation

70%

33%

62%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Democrat

Republican

Independent

Political party

Not Asked in 2005

Political LandscapeImplications for the University of Illinois

• Higher education issues have traditionally been state concerns, but Congress also has become much more interested in issues related to higher education’s affordability and public accountability.

• Growing public concern over affordability and recent legislation (e.g., “Truth in Tuition”) will make major increases in tuition challenging to achieve.

• Congress is also interested in an array of issues concerned with Homeland Security, which will have implications for privacy and student issues.

• The “P-16” education continuum has been truncated in the minds of many state policymakers and no longer includes higher education; there is, however, a significant focus on issues related to K-12 education and its financing.

• While the University enjoys a broad base of support within the General Assembly, the dominance of other issues facing the state legislature (e.g., health care, pensions, K-12 education) make it difficult to advance the University’s (or higher education’s) interests.

• There is growing interest at both the state and national levels in creating complex data systems that would provide policy makers and the general public with detailed information on student progress through the P-16 educational pipeline and beyond to the work place.

SourcesExternal Sources• U.S. Bureau of the Census• WICHE Enrollment Projections 2006• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics• Post Secondary Education Opportunity Newsletter• National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators 2007• National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)• U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis• U.S. Office of Management and Budget• TIAA-CREF Institute Quarterly• Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission• Milken Institute• Governor’s State Budget Recommendations for FY 2008• House Democratic Budget Summit Document FY 2008• Northern Illinois University 2007 Illinois Policy Survey

U of I Reports• Profile of Students, Faculty and Staff by Race/Ethnic Group, Gender and Disability• Financial Aid Survey• University Office for Planning and Budgeting Employment Statistics• FY 2008 Budget Request for Operating and Capital Funds• Institute for Government and Public Affairs• Budget Summary for Operations• Annual Report Technology Commercialization Activities

environmental scan

Documents

good environmental scan

university office

university community

online education

higher education participation

strategic planning process

key opportunities

key highlights