Nghiên cứu chiến lược vận động hành lang giáo dục đại học cấp tiểu bang: Nghiên cứu hai bang

LOBBYING TACTICS EMPLOYED IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE STATE LEVEL: A TWO-STATE STUDY (Under the direction of Dr. William Rouse, Jr. Cheryl McFadden), Department of Educational Leadership, April 2017. This study sought a better understanding of lobbying tactics used in higher education at the state level.

Given the economic recession the United States experienced in recent years, it is now more important than ever for public higher education to maintain its current funding levels and effectively communicate needed policy changes. To advance all public institutions, there must be communication with legislative officials and state-level higher education governing board members. The primary research question for this study was: What strategies and tactics are used in higher education lobbying at the state level, and how do these strategies influence the decisions made by legislative decision makers? Through semi-structured interviews in North Carolina and South Carolina, the researcher coded and analyzed information using the framework for public policy development established by the work of Gabel and Scott. The researcher developed a case study for each state, extracted common themes, compared them through a cross-case analysis, and then used triangulation to help validate the results, mostly using newspapers and periodicals to back up what was discovered during the interviews.

The analysis revealed the common strategies and tactics that guide lobbying activities in North Carolina and South Carolina. The researcher also conducted interviews with campus-based lobbyists at public institutions, elected officials, and higher education governing board members in North Carolina and South Carolina. This study identifies the most important state priorities in public higher education. This study went beyond previous studies as it examined two states with differing higher education governing structures.

Further, this study involved interviews with elected officials, campus-based lobbyists, and higher education governing board members. The strategies and tactics identified will help higher education institutions advocate for funding and policy changes, and increase the body of knowledge of public higher education lobbying at the state level. LOBBYING TACTICS EMPLOYED IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE STATE LEVEL: A TWO-STATE STUDY A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership by Keith L. Tingley April 2017 © Copyright 2017 Keith L.

Tingley LOBBYING TACTICS EMPLOYED IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE STATE LEVEL: A TWO-STATE STUDY by Keith L. Tingley APPROVED BY: CO-DIRECTOR OF DISSERTATION: _____________________________________________ William Rouse, Jr., EdD CO-DIRECTOR OF DISSERTATION: _____________________________________________ Cheryl McFadden, EdD COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________ Carmine Scavo, PhD COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________ Steven Schmidt, PhD COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________ Robert Thompson, PhD CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: _________________________________________________________ William Rouse, Jr., EdD DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL: _________________________________________________________ Paul Gemperline, PhD DEDICATION For my parents, Blaine and Sarah, thanks for all the support, love, and guidance throughout my life. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the faculty within the Department of Educational Leadership Higher Education Administration concentration. Cheryl McFadden, David Siegel, and Crystal Chambers prepared me for my dissertation and their encouragement was instrumental in my completion of the coursework and dissertation.

I am grateful to my cohort for always being supportive throughout this process. I want to thank to my dissertation committee: Drs. Carmine Scavo, Steve Schmidt, and Bob Thompson. I am thankful to my dissertation chair, Dr.

Cheryl McFadden, for helping me through this journey even after leaving the East Carolina University. I have benefited greatly from the advice and support from my committee. I want to thank Jennifer Joyner who has spent countless hours helping edit projects throughout the doctoral program. Finally, I would like to thank all the participants in the study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE. v LIST OF TABLES. x LIST OF FIGURES. xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY.

1 Context of the Study. 5 Purpose of the Study. 7 Significance of the Study. 10 Limitations and Delimitations.

11 Implications for Policy and Practice. 13 Organization of the Study. 15 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. 17 Higher Education Funding and the Federal Government.

17 State Appropriations and Higher Education. 18 The Background Setting. 26 Political Culture of North Carolina………………………………………………….26 Political Culture of South Carolina………………………………………………….30 Higher Education Governance Structures. 32 Lobbying in Political Science.

42 Interest Group Lobbying. 49 Higher Education as a Political Tool. 525 The Federal Process and Higher Education Lobbying. 56 Higher Education Association Lobbying.

57 Higher Education Lobbying at the State Level. 67 Modes of Analysis. 73 CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE CASES AND CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS. 74 Strategies and Tactics.

84 Other Strategies and Tactics. 85 Decision of Strategy and Tactic. 87 Agenda Setting As a Strategy. 87 Lobbying Strength in Working with Other Institutions.

91 Board Members are Lobbyists at the State Level. 92 Not All Institutions are Created Equal in Access and Influence. 96 Are University Officials Lobbyists?. 96 Reaching Intended Outcomes.

99 Good Stewards of Resources. 103 Stand-Alone Issues. 103 Stakeholder Theory and Relationship Management. 108 Summary of Findings.

117 Implications for Policy and Practice .118 A Model for Success……………………………………………………………….120 Merged Boards and Board Structure. 121 Multi-Institutional Collaborations. 124 Higher Education Lobbying of Independent Colleges and Universities. 124 Duplication of Degrees, Schools, and Programs.

125 Policy Development and Interest Group Influence. 130 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. 151 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE 2. 152 APPENDIX C: THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 2015 POLICY AGENDA.

153 APPENDIX D: SCICU PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE. 156 APPENDIX E: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL. 159 LIST OF TABLES 1. List of Public Institutions, Location, and Enrollment in North Carolina, 2013.

List of Public Senior Institutions, Locations, and Enrollment in South Carolina, 2014……. Institutions Affiliated with the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education. Actions, Examples, and Implementation of Lobbying Activities. Lobbying Techniques Used on the Federal Level.

List of Participants. Actions, Specific Examples, and Implementation of Lobbying Activities in North Carolina and South Carolina. 76 LIST OF FIGURES 1. State, local, and net tuition revenue supporting general operating expenses in higher education, US, Fiscal Year 2014.

Spending per full-time equivalent (FTE) student in the southeastern United States with Wyoming and Arizona. Percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degree over the age of 25, in southeastern states with Wyoming and Arizona according to the United States Census Bureau (2015). North Carolina request cycle. 90 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY Background Lobbying by public higher education institutions at the state level ranges from keeping elected officials informed to direct interventions that more profoundly affect institutions.

Very little is known publicly about what occurs at the state level regarding higher education policy and little is reported about lobbying activities, which makes it a topic worthy of further investigation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (2015), between $81 million and $110 million was spent each year for education lobbying from 2008-2014 for both higher education and K-12. In the four years prior, 2004-2007, an average of $85 million was spent by the same lobbying entities (Center for Responsive Politics, 2015). Some 90% of education lobbying is spent on higher education, resulting in an average of $76.5 million per year spent for higher education lobbying (Vedder, 2013).

These figures include those disclosed by each organization and institution spent on outside lobbying contracts (Center for Responsive Politics, 2015). According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) (2015), $86.3 billion was appropriated by states and localities to higher education during the 2014 fiscal year. To navigate the state appropriations process, many university systems turn to lobbyists to negotiate with legislators and state officials (Ferrin, 2003). While the Center for Responsive Politics (2015) found that $81 million was spent on lobbying in 2014, this is not an accurate total of the amount spent on lobbying for public higher education, as many institutions fail to include employees who work for the institution in multiple roles.

The largest single reported spender, Texas A & M University, spent more than $1.565 million in 2012 and $1. Lederman (2006) and Ferrin (2003) found that smaller private colleges use lobbyists to advance their position on the state level and often petition federal officials for research funding and legislation that benefit their interests. Some universities, such as the University of California, Los Angeles, have as many as 30 employees in offices often called Government Affairs, State Government Relations, Federal Government Relations, or Policy Offices, but the total lobbying expenditures reported for the entire University of California system was only $788,000 (Center for Responsive Politics, 2015). Further examples include The Ohio State University which reported only $260,000 in lobbying activity in 2013 (Center for Responsive Politics, 2015), but had a staff in its Government Affairs Office that included six people making over $100,000 each per year and a combined income of over $900,000 (Vedder, 2013).

Vedder (2013) proposed that the most plausible dollar amount spent within higher education lobbying is $1 billion, which exceeds $60 for every full-time student in the United States. With the exception of Glade (2011) and Ferrin (2003), limited research has been conducted on in-house lobbying at the state level. This study examined lobbying techniques and strategies used for state-level funding, policy development, and resource requests in North Carolina and South Carolina. While these two states are often grouped together and referred to as “the Carolinas,” they have very different economies, political landscapes, and educational structures.

These two states were selected because of their distinctive governing structures, the amount they allocate in funding for public higher education, and the policies placed on each system’s ability to lobby. Since the first state public institution was formed, state appropriations have been the primary catalyst of higher education in the United States. While the primary function of states in public higher education is to provide funding, states also influence higher education through governing boards and legislation that create policies. The construction and maintenance of 2 facilities is often decided in the state legislature after recommendations are made by the local campus and state governing boards.

Many states appropriate a significant amount of funding for in-state students, and these funds educate student residents at a reduced cost. Since the founding of the University of North Carolina (UNC) in 1789, the General Assembly of North Carolina has played a major role in the funding of public institutions. What eventually became the UNC system began with one institution established in 1789; the General Assembly started sponsoring other institutions in 1877. A bill passed by the state legislature in 1971 brought all the campuses together under a single governing structure (Link, 1995).

Since 1971, the UNC system has supported 16 universities and one high school for gifted students, and it is managed by the University of North Carolina Board of Governors (UNC BOG). Every public higher education institution in North Carolina has some form of lobbying for state funds; however, individual institutions are strictly forbidden by the UNC General Administration (UNC-GA) to lobby for state funds. Instead, the entire UNC-GA is supposed to ask for funding and policies as a group and not as individual institutions. Despite this policy, more than half of the state institutions have full-time, in-house lobbyists; the others employ someone for this role at least part time.

Among the remaining institutions, some are represented by the lobbying officials within the UNC-GA, and others use influential volunteers who are traditionally institutional alumni. In many instances, students are brought before legislators to share personal stories that depict the need for future or continued funding. The South Carolina public higher education system is overseen by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (South Carolina CHE).