University and community‑college leaders tell committee Oregon underinvests in higher education, urge more state aid

University and community‑college officials told the House Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development on April 1 that Oregon’s public investment in higher education lags regional peers, shifting greater cost to students and creating budget pressure for institutions.

Jamie Moffitt, senior vice president for finance and administration at the University of Oregon, told the committee the seven public universities collectively have an estimated annual economic impact of about $8 billion and employ more than 31,000 people statewide. Moffitt said median earnings data show a substantial lifetime benefit to degree attainment and argued those economic returns justify public investment. “There’s really a magnifying effect here of the funds that are invested in the institutions and then the impact that the institution has on the state,” she said.

Moffitt and other institutional presenters outlined three central concerns: (1) Oregon provides comparatively low state appropriation per full‑time‑equivalent student; (2) low state investment has produced higher net tuition revenue per student in Oregon than in many peer states; and (3) state and institutional budgets face rising personnel‑related costs — salary, health benefits and retirement — that together account for most campus operating budgets.

John Harmon, vice president for finance and administration at Oregon Tech, added regional examples showing technical and regional universities contribute substantially to local economies. Harmon noted programs such as the Engineering Technology Sustaining Fund (ETSF) that were created through past state investment and said similar targeted investments can produce workforce results in fields the state is prioritizing.

John Wyckoff, deputy director of the Oregon Community College Association, presented community‑college data and said colleges serve a larger proportion of adult and part‑time students than four‑year institutions and are recovering enrollment declines from the pandemic. Wyckoff described community colleges’ funding mix — state funds, property taxes and tuition — and said average per‑student funding is low; community colleges estimate a higher current‑service funding need than the state’s current service level. Wyckoff also flagged student basic‑needs pressures: about 25% of community college students are unable to meet expenses with expected resources, and housing and food costs are increasing demand for campus supports.

Presenters noted recent and proposed state investments that affect affordability, including a prior increase to the Oregon Opportunity Grant and an institutional request to increase that grant pool to accommodate changes in federal financial aid calculations and a larger applicant pool. Moffitt asked the legislature to consider the long‑term return on investment from higher education funding, framing state investments as a tool for workforce development and poverty reduction.

Committee members asked about enrollment trends, transfer pathways from community colleges to four‑year campuses, and possible federal funding risks to research grants. Presenters said enrollment effects vary by campus and that federal grant uncertainty (including reimbursement for facilities and administrative costs on some grants) adds planning risk to campus budgets.

Ending: Committee members thanked presenters and left the record open for follow‑up data requests, including disaggregated enrollment and transfer metrics requested by a committee member. University and college leaders asked the committee to consider the fiscal implications of funding proposals during Ways and Means and the legislative session.