Exploring the benefits and limitations of Exploring the benefits and limitations of including independent institutions in the including independent institutions in the

University System of OhioUniversity System of Ohio

Introduction

• Chancellor of Ohio Board of Regents creates 10-year plan higher education in 2007*

• Plan creates University System of Ohio– 14 public universities– 24 branch campuses– 23 community colleges– 100+ adult workforce centers

*Ohio Board of Regents (2008)

Introduction

• Target goals by 2017*

– Graduate 113,00 students

– Increase the number of the students living in Ohio three years after they graduate to 70 percent

– Increase the number of graduates ages 22-64 entering the state (minus the number leaving the state) by 10,000 graduates

*Ohio Board of Regents (2008)

Problem

Based on future population and high school graduate projections, the state of Ohio will not meet its targeted goals unless consideration is given to including Ohio’s independent institutions in the University System of Ohio (USO).

Purpose of Study

• Determine impact of including independent institutions in USO

– May help state meet its targeted goals

– May impact funding resources if USO institutions have to share public funds

– May serve as model for other states with similar higher education goals and/or financial constraints

Research questions

• Research questions will attempt to answer the following:

– The impact of including independent institutions in the USO on meeting state enrollment and graduation goals

– The financial impact on state appropriations to state share of instruction and financial aid

– How campus president perceptions may influence policy makers to include independent institutions in the USO

What the literature tells us

• Ohio’s population only expected to grow by 1 percent through 20251

• High school graduates expected to decrease by 7 percent through 20251

• State appropriations projected to decrease or remain flat in near future2

• Current enrollment projections suggest USO (as presently constituted) will not meet goals3

1NCPPHE (2008)2OBM (2011)3Ohio Board of Regents (2011)

What the literature tells us

• Proprietary sector in Ohio includes 311 schools, 59,000 students enrolled in 1,200 degree programs1

• Non-profit private sector in Ohio includes 136,000 students2

• Previous state strategic plans did not include independent institutions3

• Does not appear to be similar effort on national front

1SBCCS (2011)2AICUO (2010)3Ohio Board of Regents (1964, 1972, 1985, 1996)

Importance to the field

• Other states projected to see decline in population and high school graduates.

• State funding will continue to be an issue for public colleges and universities in other states.

• Growth in independent sector (non- and for-profit) outpacing its public counterparts.

• Inclusion of independent institutions may provide more accurate account of enrollments, completions, and economic impact to Ohio and other states.

Importance to the field

• Inclusion of independent institutions may promote program sharing, resources, and facilities, thus maximizing resources and reducing tax payer burden.

• Competition for state funding may improve quality of programs among public and independent institutions.

Target audiences

• State higher education agencies

• Public/independent institutions

• State legislatures

• Higher education associations

• Taxpayers

Methodology

• Mixed methods approach to be used

• Quantitative (hypothesis)– Benefits of including independent institutions

in USO will outweigh the limitations placed on the system as a result of their inclusion

– Dependent variable: state’s higher ed goals

– Independent variable: role of independent institutions if included in USO

Methodology

• Quantitative continued

• Survey institutions over five month period

• Analyze current and projected enrollment and graduates for next five years

• Analyze cost of providing additional state share of instruction and financial aid to independent institutions

Methodology

• Qualitative study

• Interview USO and independent campus presidents over six month period

– Independent: electronic questionnaire

– Community college: focus group discussions

– Public university: One-on-one personal interviews

Methodology

• Qualitative continued

• Questions to be asked

• What will the University System of Ohio need to do alone to meet the stated goals of the state’s strategic plan for higher education?

• What role do you think the independent institutions play in educating the state’s citizens?

• Should independent institutions be included in the USO if it meant the state’s higher education goals would be met?

• What financial impact do you think the addition of independent institutions might have on USO institutions?

Analysis and Interpretation

• Quantitative analysis

• Three data sets

– Spreadsheet of enrollments and completions by USO and independent institutions

– Graphical analysis (by year) of USO and independent enrollment (by entire sector)

– Graphical analysis (by year) of financial impact by sector

Analysis and Interpretation

• Qualitative analysis

• Interviews will be transcribed and coded for themes

• Results shared in narrative form

• Information disseminated by sector and itemized by question

Pre-study conclusions

Positives•The inclusion of the independent institutions in the USO would help the state meet its higher education goals. •Independent presidents would likely be in favor of joining the USO if it meant the institutions would be awarded state share of instruction.

Negative•USO campuses will not be in favor of the initiative due to the financial impact that could result from including the private institutions in the USO.

Literature map

References

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities and Ohio (2010). Annual Report 2010. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.aicuo.edu/docs2/2010%20AICUO%20Annual%20Report%20Lres.pdf

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008). Measuring Up 2008: The State Report Card on Higher Education—Ohio. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/OH.pdf.

Office of Budget and Management (2011). The Jobs Budget: Transforming Ohio for Growth (Book One: The Budget Book). Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1213/ExecutiveBudget.aspx.

Ohio Board of Regents. (1964). Master Plan for Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Ohio Board of Regents. (1972). Master Plan for Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Ohio Board of Regents. (1985). Master Plan for Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

References

Ohio Board of Regents. (1996). Master Plan for Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Ohio Board of Regents. (2008). Strategic Plan for Higher Education 2008-2017. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from http://www.uso.edu/strategicplan/downloads/documents/strategicPlan/USOStrategicPlan.pdf

Ohio Board of Regents. (2011). University System of Ohio at a Glance: March 2011. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

State Board of Career Colleges and Schools. (2011). Annual Report FY2010. Retrieved, June 6, 2011, from http://scr.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ZJ-03Lww0_w%3d&tabid=75