Years of State Budget Cuts Take a Toll at UCSF

UCSF receives 9 percent of its revenue – or $220 million – from state general funds. Although that may seem like a small part of a $2.5 billion budget, it is a "critical 9 percent," says Associate Vice Chancellor of Finance Eric Vermillion. As a result, the proposed cuts in fiscal year 2008-09 state general funds to the University of California – and, in turn, UCSF – will be particularly painful to absorb, campus officials say, because UCSF has been hammered by repeated state reductions in recent years. In fact, UCSF has implemented state-mandated budget cuts in 14 out of the past 18 years, according to Eric Vermillion, associate vice chancellor of finance. Vermillion and Angela Hawkins, executive director of Budget and Resource Management at UCSF, say the cumulative impact on UCSF of these yearly cuts in state general funds can be seen in the following ways: * Recruiting Students: UCSF is less competitive in being able to attract the best and brightest students, versus other premier universities, such as Stanford, Johns Hopkins and Harvard. That is because these other universities have large endowments and can afford to offer more attractive recruitment packages, including paying tuition for students from low- and middle-income families. This year, several highly qualified students declined admission offers from UCSF, opting instead for other schools – including lower-ranked ones – offering more financial aid. Those who do graduate from UCSF are doing so with higher debt. * Limiting Access: UCSF has limited access to graduate academic students, who learn by conducting life sciences research at UCSF, because the University can't afford to subsidize the higher costs of fees, which are paid mostly by individual graduate programs and declining extramural fund sources. The fees for California residents have increased 109 percent, from $4,695 in fiscal yar 2001-2002 to $9,822 in 2007-2008. In 2007, the Tetrad Program, which represents one-quarter of UCSF graduate students in the areas of biochemistry and molecular biology, genetics, cell biology, and developmental biology, had to limit the incoming class size for the first time in the history of UCSF's graduate program. * Providing Quality Education: With fewer state resources to support the academic mission and vision, UCSF will be less able to provide a quality education to the physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, PhD students and other skilled workers in training who provide health care, conduct leading-edge life sciences research and contribute to the regional economy. * Covering Basic Costs: Chancellor's discretionary funds have been used to cover basic facility operating costs at UCSF instead of being invested in programs to realize its vision and mission. Rather than strategically advancing the University by initiating or expanding innovative programs for the future, the chancellor has had to spend discretionary funds just to keep the lights on. Natural gas bills are expected to soar upward of 25 percent in fiscal year 2008-2009 and other commodity costs are expected to increase in the 10 percent to 15 percent range. * Using Debt Financing: UCSF has had to revert to using debt to finance both major deferred maintenance projects and emergency maintenance projects, such as replacing building roofs that fail. UCSF has had to finance these major construction projects ($40 million) from chancellor's discretionary funds because the state deferred maintenance funds had been previously cut. * Affecting Work Climate: The cumulative impact of these state budget cuts, coupled with the lack of competitive faculty and staff salaries, as well as increased workloads caused by ever-increasing regulatory compliance requirements and the overall climate that year after year of budget cutting is perpetuating, will make it harder for UCSF to recruit and retain high-quality faculty, staff and students. * Making Hard Choices: There is little left to cut in UCSF state funds, so further budget reductions will require making hard choices about University priorities in achieving its mission. UCSF will be forced to limit its services, institute more recharge services, and reduce faculty and staff through layoffs and attrition, rather than building and growing for the future.