American Association of State Colleges and Universities: Advocacy, Leadership & Service

               Since 1961, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities has been an advocate for public institutions of higher learning. Per the AASCU website:

AASCU is a Washington-based higher education association of nearly 420 public colleges, universities and systems whose members share a learning- and teaching-centered culture, a historic commitment to underserved student populations and a dedication to research and creativity that advances their regions’ economic progress and cultural development (AASCU, 2011).

                In the 2010 report “Advocacy, Leadership and Service: AASCU in 2010,” the organization reported on the initiatives that they were involved in and the influence that they had on many pertinent decisions for the members of the organization and the students. An example of AASCU influence was the organization’s assistance with the new Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA). The AASCU was involved in securing additional funding for the Pell Grant Program. According to the report, $36 billion would be invested into the Pell Grant Program over the next 10 years (AASCU, 2010. p. 4). The AASCU was also given the opportunity to continue a three-year grant program entitled Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) (AASCU, 2010, p. 7). The grant was used to create accountability measures “to prepare future math and science teachers in the state of Wisconsin” (AASCU, 2010, p 7-8).

               

              The AASCU has been a constant help for its members and institutions during the current economic crisis. The AASCU collaborated with the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) to provide an online presentation for institutions to learn about financial management during these tough economic times (AASCU, 2010, p15). The AASCU also provided information on revenue sources for its members through the Grants Resource Center (GRC). According to the AASCU, the GRC has taken in more than 70 new fund proposals and has seen the Center become labeled as “a primary source of grant information news” (AASCU, 2010, p. 15).

                 

               The AASCU continues to be a leader in the higher education community. As its mission states, they are here to “honor and fulfill the public trust” (AASCU, 2010, p. 20). The organization affects many of the nation’s institutions and its students by providing access to America’s colleges and universities in a meaningful and affordable manner. With over 3.8 million of the nations students enrolled in the institutions supported by the AASCU, it is the organization’s duty to remain an advocate and to keep the students, as well as other members, informed at all times.

About AASCU (2011). Retrieved from http://aascu.org/strategic-plan/governing-ideas/.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2010). Advocacy, Leadership & Service: AASCU in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/MediaAndPublications/Annual_Report/10anreport.pdf.

American Association of Community Colleges: Funding Issues in U.S. Community Colleges

Many of the nation’s higher education institutions have organizations that advocate for the advancement and development of those institutions; community colleges are no exception to this thought. Founding in 1920, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) has become the main “voice” of the community colleges throughout the nation and in various overseas institutions (AACC, 2011). The association represents over “1,200 two-year, associate degree-seeking institutions,” including institutions in nations such as Japan, Great Britain, Korea, Puerto Rico, and the United Arab Emirates (AACC, 2011). According to the AACC, community colleges are the “largest and fastest growing sector of U.S.  higher education,” with approximately 46% of all U.S. undergraduates enrolled in their institutions (AACC, 2011).

As with other higher education institutions affected by the economic crisis that has been brewing from the last few years, community colleges have not been immune to any of the issues surrounding funding for higher education. In 2008, the AACC sponsored the report “Funding Issues in U.S. Community Colleges: Findings from a 2007 Survey of the National State Directors of Community Colleges”. According to the report, “community college funding flows from the appropriations and federally funded workforce training programs” (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 1). Of the 51 members of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC) that were resent surveys, 49 members, or their representatives, responded, representing all of the states that are members of the NCSDCC. Delaware and South Dakota did not respond, while Puerto Rico was not surveyed at the time (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 2). There were respondents to this survey that noted that the colleges experienced stability in state funding, but there were some concerns about a possible decline in support – this was noted prior to the housing collapse of 2008 (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 3).

The report shows that 34 of the 49 respondents indicated that they had a funding formula, but only 14 of those respondents were fully funded (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 3). Although there was funding reported, tuition increases in the future was eminent, with a prediction of a 4% increase in community college tuition (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 3). Even though the respondents believe that an increase in tuition would most likely occur over time, 66% of the respondents believed that enrollment caps were factors in the increase in enrollment at community colleges; other respondents, however, thought that tuition increase at the public institutions lead to an increase in community college enrollment (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 3-4). 

The authors also reported that depending on location, the community colleges could face budgetary strains. Approximately 30 of the 49 respondents believed that rural community colleges would face more strain than their urban and suburban counterparts (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008, p. 4). Over the last few years, we have seen that these institutions, as well as 4-year instructions, have had financial strain. As we have seen since 2008, the predictions were not that far off in that the colleges did face some problems with annual tuition increases. Despite the increase in tuition, community colleges have seen a serge in enrollments, and will more thank likely continue to see an increase as tuition at 4-year institutions increase.

About AACC (2011). Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/About/Who/Pages/default.aspx.

Katsinas, S.G., Tollefson, T.A., Reamey, B.A. (2008). Funding Issues in U.S. Community Colleges: Findings from a 2007 Survey of the National State Directors of Community Colleges [Report].Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Reports/Documents/fundingissues.pdf.  

National Association of College and University Business Officers: Annual Commonfund Study of Endowments

The National Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO, is an organization comprised of members from the various 2500 colleges and universities throughout the US and around the world that handles the daily business activities of the representative colleges, universities, and higher education institutions. The membership consists of business and financial officers, as well as other members of higher education administration from the various higher education institutions represented in the organization. Its mission is “to advance the economic viability and business practices of higher education institutions in fulfillment of their academic missions” (NACUBO).

The NACUBO, in conjunction with the Commonfund Institute, conducted a study that measured the amount of investments and returns produced by each institution. The NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments  (NCSE) had 850 US schools participate in the report, with 64% of those institutions being private institutions and 36% being public institutions. Within that 36%, 29% of the combined assets derived from public institutions while private institutions made up 71% of the total number of assets measured in this report. The report reviewed how the institutions allocated their asses throughout the year, as well as reported on the returned and investments made by the institutions. For example, it was reported that all 850 institutions reported an average return of 11.9% for the 2010FY, which was up from the -18.7% average return reported for the 2009FY (NCSE, 2010, p. 10).  The total assets reported from the endowments were $346 billion, with 15% of the assets allocated to domestic equities (NCSE, 2010, p. 14).

Not only did the study consist of reports on the monetary assets and investments, but also on other resources, such as staff, management, and the governance of the institutions. According to the report, there was an average of 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members employed at the institutions that participated in the report (NCSE, 2010, p 54). Per the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, to calculate the FTE you take “the number of employees on full-time schedules plus the number of employees on part-time schedule converted to a full-time basis” (BEA, 2007).  Per the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

The number of full-time equivalent employees in each industry is the product of the total number of employees and the ratio of average weekly hours per employee for all employees to average weekly hours per employee on full-time schedules. An industry’s full-time equivalent employment will be less than the number of its employees on full- and part-time schedules, unless it has no part-time employees.

The report emphasized that there are factors, similar to non-academic industries or companies, that drive the costs of education. The report mentions that 80% of the participants used outside consultants, rather than internal staff/employees, on making decisions pertaining certain decision, such as asset allocation or hiring of staff members. A current report is being conducted for the 2011FY, and based on current economic trends, it would be interesting to see if any changes, or increase in some resources or asset allocations, were made compared to the 2010FY.

U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2007). Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/index.htm.

National Association of College and University Business Officers (2011). Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/

The NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments (2010). Retrieved from http://onlineresearch.nacubo.org/nacubo/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=pub2:view.  

Council on Advancement and Support for Education: Foundation Funding Sources

The Council on Advancement and Support for Education was formed in 1974 after the merger between the American Alumni Council and the American College Public Relations Association was completed. CASE is a professional association that served educational institutions, not only colleges and universities, but other educational institutions such as primary and secondary schools, both domestic and international (CASE, 2011). The membership consists of advancement professionals who work on the behalf of their institutions’ alumni, communications network, and as well as the development and marketing groups within the institutions. The main aspect of CASE is to raise awareness and support for education around the world (CASE, 2011).

CASE understands that no one is immune to the economic crisis that has affected our economy, especially higher education institutions. In 2006, David Bass, the Director of Government Relations and Center for Institutionally Related Foundations for CASE, conducted a survey to determine the source of funding for foundations and institutions that have been affected by the current economic crisis. Bass surveyed 195 foundations, which were then broken down based on institution types. The institutions ranged from two-year foundations to liberal arts foundations, as well as masters and doctoral research foundations (Bass, 2006, p. 1). Approximately 59% of the foundations described themselves as interdependent, meaning that they received some form of support or benefit from the institutions in which they received funding, while 16% of the foundations where completely dependent on the institution and another 26 were independent for the institutions. Per the report, those independent were most likely from masters and doctoral foundations (Bass, 2006, p. 2).

Information derived from the report showed how involved the institutions were in fund raising for the foundations. While only 10 of all of the foundations reported that they had little to no role in fund raising, while at least 33 were either somewhat to completely responsible for fund raising for the foundations. At least 49% of the two-year foundations were “almost wholly responsible for the direction and execution of fund raising” (Bass, 2006, p. 4).

The report also mentions the source of funding for foundations. Bass reported that the most common funding sources were from unrestricted gift funds (78%), investment income on unrestricted funds (78%), and management fees of endowed funds (68%). Although these are the most common sources of funding, the most significant were negotiated payments and endowment management fees from the institutions (Bass, 2006, p. 7).

This report was interesting in that it provided a look into how higher education institutions, despite the economic crisis, are able to receive the funding needed for the foundations that they support. The various sources, such as funding from real estate transactions (19%), help to support the institutions’ fund raising endeavors. Of hat 19%, 15 of that funding accounted for the budget of the institutions represented in this survey (Bass, 2006, p. 10). At a time when the economic downturn has affected so many institutions, it is interesting to see some are able to continue with methods in which to raise and provide the funds for the various foundations around the world.

About CASE (2011). Retrieved from http://www.case.org/About_CASE.html.

Bass, D. (2006). Survey of Foundation Funding Sources and Fees.  Council on Advancement and Support for Education. Retrieved from http://www.case.org/documents/protected/IRF/CASE_Foundation_Funding_Sources_Survey_Report.pdf.

The American Indian Higher Education Consortium: The Effects of Assessment on Tribal Colleges

The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) was founded in by a group of presidents from the United State’s first six tribal colleges in 1972.  The purpose of the AIHEC was to bring together the tribal colleges to form a common unit that would support the ideals and vision of its members. The AIHEC currently represents 36 U.S. institutions and one Canadian college and is considered to be “lifeline” of the tribal colleges (AIHEC, 2011).

On July 22, 2011, Anne Marie Karlberg published the report entitled “Assessment Essentials for Tribal Colleges”, which was to provide a source information for tribal colleges to be able to assess the development and learning of current students and alumni of those colleges. The report shows of the importance for tribal colleges to provide an adequate education to its students. Per the report, to have effective tribal college assessment program, three types of information must be used in order to assess the students’ progress. Karlberg describes these as direct indicators, indirect indicators, and institutional data – all of which to be assessed on the college, program and course levels (Karlberg, 2011).

The primary purpose of an assessment, as described by Karberg, is to improve student learning in higher education, while the secondary purpose is to “demonstrate accountability” (Karlberg, 2011). Assessment can affect a college financially in that if there are some discrepancies discovered, public funding can be reduced (Karlberg, 2011). Assessment affects accreditation, and if the assessment shows that the accreditation should be revoked, then federal funding may be affected. The tribal colleges must adhere to the accreditation boards and other organizations that financially support the tribal colleges (Karlberg, 2011).

As previously stated, there are three types of information necessary to complete an assessment, and the information is broken down, per types, into different levels:

• Direct Indicators – “the systemic process of gathering, interpreting, and using information regarding student academic performance to improve student learning and the quality of academic programs.”
• College Outcomes – Describes all of the skills that the college would like for its students to have once they have graduated from its institution.
• Program Outcomes – Going beyond what is outlined by the college outcomes, describes what the tribal colleges would like for the students to do by the end of the students’ programs or majors.
• Course Outcomes – The skills that the students should possess by the end of the course.
• Indirect Indicators – Information that is taken from surveys, focus groups, and interviews, which usually provides information about “the students’ own perception of their learning experience.”
• Examples – course evaluations, student satisfaction surveys, graduate surveys, alumni surveys, student self-evaluations, and/or evaluations of programs and services provided by the institution.
• Institutional Data – Usually quantitative data, measures the internal activities and how effective what the colleges provide to the students.
• Course Level Data – Completion rates and enrollment numbers by course; grades distribution analysis; success level of students in other courses.
• Program/Degree Level Data – GPA’s; retention rates; graduation rates and numbers; cost per program.
• College Level Data – Enrollment patters; student/faculty ratio; participation in extracurricular activities.

All of these indicators, after an assessment, can determine whether or not a tribal college can maintain its accreditation and receive federal funding or funding provided by other financial supporters.

The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (2011). http://www.aihec.org/.  

Karlberk, A.M. (2011) Assessment Essentials for Tribal Colleges. American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from http://www.aihec.org/resources/documents/AssessmentEssentialsForTribalColleges.pdf.