Return to Self-Study Table of Contents
Return to Washburn University Home Page
A. Quick Summary of Chapter 6
B. Does the University's resource base suggest that it can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness?
Part 1. Are resources organized and allocated to support strengthening educational effectiveness?
Parts 2 and 3. What are the chief resource threats to the University, and how does the institution plan to face them? Are majors changes in the funding base (for example, state affiliation, sales tax, mill levy increases) necessary? If so, how will the University proceed toward making those changes?
C. Does the University's organizational structure and function suggest that it can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness?
Part 1. How effective is the University's planning process?
Part 2. Are the University's decision-making processes and governance structures capable of responding quickly and effectively to anticipated or unanticipated challenges to the institution?
Part 3. Is the University's assessment effort sustainable? Does it have the support of the Board of Regents and the senior administration? Is it adequately funded? Do the results of assessment influence academic planning or the budget process?
We believe this Self-Study Report and the resource materials that will be provided to the evaluation team document Washburn University's success as an institution with sound academic programs and excellent financial structure. Washburn has focused on its higher education mission without getting too sidetracked on peripheral activities, endeavoring to make itself productive, efficient and effective.
The world in which higher education is presently functioning is one of diminishing public support, increasing expectations and mandated requirements. Yet Washburn's focus on mission and fiscal conservatism has led to steady growth in budget, annual increases in pay, growth in FTE employees, increases in activities, and excellent facilities and quality programs in an environment where the opposite has occurred at many other institutions.
Washburn's history and traditions, its practices and plans, and its structure and resources make it clear that Washburn can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness.
As outlined in chapter 2 of this self-study report, Washburn's primary resource bases are tuition, state financial support, ad valorem taxes and fund raising. The supplemental report of University funds and resources (to be provided to the evaluation team) describes and provides financial statements for each fund. It also provides future projections for the operational funds. These financial resources are generally adequate to support Washburn's mission.
The first three primary revenue sources are stable and increasing moderately. Tuition is now at $100 per student credit hour for undergraduate residents, and has been increasing slightly each year for many years. Continued modest increases are expected. In recent years the Board of Regents has tried to keep tuition increases close to the increase in consumer prices. While Washburn's tuition rate appears high among Kansas public schools, it is close to the national average for in-state public tuition, raising the question of whether Washburn's tuition is too high or the other schools' tuition is too low.
Washburn continues to receive increases in funding from the state each year, generally on a percentage basis roughly equal to that given to the Regents institutions. State support represents a smaller percentage of Washburn's total budget than that of state institutions, so the increases do not have the same effect on this University's total budget. Ad valorem tax revenues have increased due to increases in property valuation. However, the mill levy for Washburn's general fund is capped and the University is operating at that cap. Increases in the general fund mill levy must be approved by the State Legislature.
Fund raising efforts are increasing and provide a margin for Washburn to excel over similar institutions. Washburn's endowments are valued at over $80 million, generally larger than that of most institutions of Washburn's size and scope, and on an FTE student basis is in the top 25 of public universities.
As indicated in chapter 4, section B.I.(C), Washburn's large endowment is developed and managed by the Washburn Endowment Association (WEA). WEA's fund raising staff includes professionals in the areas of annual giving, corporate giving, major gifts and planned giving. Planning is underway to initiate a major capital campaign in the near future. Washburn's already enviable endowment provides an excellent starting point for future accumulation of endowed funds and current gifts.
Unquestionably, Washburn has allocated its resources to provide continuing support for its mission. The previous chapters document not only the programs and activities to which Washburn allocates its resources in order to fulfill its purposes, but also systems in place to monitor the effectiveness of its allocations. At present, these include (a) Program Review, (b) Resources, Planning and Process Committee (RPPC), (c) Budget/Facilities Planning, and (d) administrative review at a variety of levels. A number of reports (including annual financial reports and strategic plan indicators) and documents are prepared to monitor results.
As outlined in previous chapters, Washburn has developed and begun to implement measurement of a variety of indicators of institutional effectiveness in meeting its mission. But we are only at the beginning of this process. At the academic program level, plans are in place or are being developed to assess student academic achievement in ways that will provide information to strengthen programs. The results of these assessments will nicely complement the Program Review process at the institution.
Washburn has not experienced the freezes or budget cuts that others have suffered through. Modest increases in pay and operating support have been possible each year. The University has been able to offer a benefits package to employees which compares very favorably to other institutions. The principal problem in recent years could be described as a lack of flexibility. Funding increases in salary limit the ability to increase operating budgets or to fund new positions or initiatives, or vice versa.
Two of Washburn's major sources of resources, ad valorem taxes and state support, have not been adequate to match perceived institutional needs. In recent years, faculty/staff remuneration and operating expense budgets have not kept pace with inflation.
Salaries are an important concern to faculty and staff. During the Spring 1997 semester, a petition signed by nearly 80% of the faculty was sent to the University Personnel Committee and to the Board of Regents which pointed out that faculty salaries have not kept pace with inflation over the previous six year period. Concern was also expressed about increases in health care costs, which in some years have exceeded pay increases for those on the lower end of the pay scale. Washburn has increased funding of health benefits to address this issue.
Some units have reported problems with supply and operating budgets ranging from mild to serious. The ability to adequately fund ordinary departmental operations and increased costs associated with computers and related technology is a continuing challenge.
It is also apparent that Washburn will need to invest more resources in increasing awareness of the institution outside of the immediate area. A 1996 "Key Audience Opinion Research" study by Leslie and Associates (Omaha, NE) found that Washburn is relatively unknown outside of its immediate area. For example, the survey found that 46.3% of the general public in Kansas do not have an impression of Washburn. Among the general public, 79.2% of those who have lived in Kansas less than five years, 63.6% of high school students 16 years of age or older, and 55.6% of high school graduates do not have an impression of Washburn. The survey found that Washburn had a relatively good academic reputation with those who were familiar with the institution, and a number of other very positive qualities. Nonetheless, faculty and staff and community supporters who were surveyed all agreed that Washburn will need to increase advertising and public relations efforts.
The resource concerns listed above are not life threatening. However, there is a need to generate additional resources to properly support our human resources as well as our programs, activities and facilities. Washburn has been and will continue to be active in increasing resources to match mission and purposes. Fortunately, Washburn has many alternatives for increasing resources, including increasing various mill levies, broadening the mill levy geographic base from the city to the county, implementing the special Library Ad Valorem Tax Fund, adding a sales tax local option for Washburn, continuing to seek state aid increases, increasing enrollment in areas with excess capacity, and becoming a Regents university. The new President, his administration and the Board of Regents are in the process of determining the option(s) on which Washburn should focus. Since Washburn is in a strong financial and programmatic position, these considerations can and are being made carefully.
Not that long ago, a state legislator referred to Washburn as "a dinosaur looking for a mate." This comment was made with regard to Washburn's position as a municipally funded institution and in support of adding Washburn to the State of Kansas Regents System. Ironically, many of these Regents institutions have been attempting in recent years to become more like Washburn, in the following respects: they have sought to operate in a revenue-driven rather than expenditure-driven environment; they have sought more autonomy at the local level; they desire more control over tuition policy and tuition ownership; and they have looked for ways to diversify revenue sources. Thus, circumstances and the environment have changed in a way that makes Washburn's organizational structure much more acceptable than it was a few years ago.
Washburn University has done its share of long-range planning, but like most institutions of higher education, the majority of institutional changes have been reactions to unique opportunities presented to the university or responses to specific community needs. Because of the above nature of university change, Washburn has tried to be prepared for the future by spending the major part of its planning efforts at articulating its mission, determining how that statement defines the institution, identifying areas of institutional responsibility and fields which are best handled by others, and discussing the type of students Washburn will serve in the future and what services they will need. Faculty, administration, students and the community have all actively participated in these discussions. This approach to planning has been effective and productive in preparing Washburn for needed change. Two specific recent examples of changes, which used earlier planning work for their justification, are the WECEP program (a college credit program for academically eligible high school seniors) and the Bachelor of Applied Studies in Technology Administration (a degree program created because of the strong need for upgrading employees and students with technical associate degrees so they can move into management positions).
During the self-study process and in the writing of this report it has become evident that Washburn has developed a culture that is amenable to change. In addition to internal mechanisms, the University has sought outside assistance to help with planning for change. As mentioned in chapter 3, Washburn faculty and staff participated during the 1996-97 academic year in the Pew Higher Education Roundtable. The discussions arising from the roundtable continue, and have provided some important suggestions regarding strengthening educational effectiveness. Some of the ideas arising from these discussions are listed below:
-from the "Building a Community Using Technology" group:
-from the "Community Partnerships" group:
-from the "Creating a Niche" group:
-from the "Becoming a Learner Centered University" group:
The emphasis to be made here is not on the merits of any or all of these ideas, but on the fact that University faculty and staff are meeting with community representatives to discuss and plan for the future. Openness to change has been a hallmark of these discussions.
In order to ensure that this process continues, Washburn will be taking part in the Knight Collaborative, which serves as the successor to the Pew Higher Education Roundtable. The intended outcomes of Collaborative participation are strategies and processes for implementing specific changes on individual campuses. The Collaborative is hosted by the Institute for Research on Higher Education (IRHE), a joint research venture of the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education, Wharton School, and School of Arts and Sciences.
The five-step program of the Knight Collaborative includes an on-campus roundtable, detailed specification, executive education, "engagement" definition and participation, and engagement assessment. Knight Collaborative engagements on working partnerships with other member campuses enlist an external expert and a master practitioner to facilitate development on designing and implementing specific strategies.
Planning activities in the College of Arts and Sciences have resulted in five-year plans for each department and for the College as a whole.
At the 1997 NACUBO Annual Conference, presenters reported that only 28% of colleges and universities have a financial plan for technology. Washburn is among this 28% with a plan, which is reviewed and updated annually. The University has a mill levy which is dedicated by law to capital and equipment needs (see chapter 2, GIR#21, and chapter 4, section C.3). Each year, a portion of this revenue is set aside by the Budget Committee for electronic technology. The Budget Committee then delegates the allocation of funds to the Electronic Technology Committee (ETC), which is composed of faculty and staff from across the campus, including the directors of both computer centers. The ETC has developed a statement of philosophy for technology which drives how requests are prioritized. All departments are queried for their technology needs. The ETC prioritizes these requests, with input from the deans and directors. The list is funded from the highest priorities on down until the allocation is spent.
This technology planning process seems to work well, although prioritizing and funding requests can be contentious. However, the overall process has proven itself, as measured by what the University has been able to accomplish with the technology dollars available. These discussions and disagreements are possible because a technology plan is in place and the issues are on the table for open discussion. The ETC continues to work on improving its decision-making process.
In FY94, then-President Thompson established the Resource Planning and Process Committee (RPPC), with the goal of looking two to five years ahead for the resource needs of the University. The idea was to spend the first year doing an intensive study of the long range needs; then the committee would revise the plan annually. Once priorities were established, the highest needs would feed into the annual budget process at the appropriate time. Planning went well the first year, but implementation was a problem due to lack of funds. The President overruled several committee recommendations and used what funds were available for projects not recommended by the RPPC. Since then, campus cooperation in this process has been limited. Many felt the process was a waste of time since discretionary funds have not been readily available. During Fall 1997, the RPPC reported these problems to President Farley, who is reviewing the situation and will make recommendations for change.
The University's decision-making processes and governance structures are capable of responding to anticipated or unanticipated challenges to the institution. The University Council, standing committees, administrative structure and the Board of Regents are all functioning. Each part of the governance structure has well delineated functions which facilitate the assignment of responsibilities in an institutional challenge. Because Washburn has a tradition of committee discussion and approval of changes, issues can be addressed rapidly, but quick final action is difficult. In emergency situations where decisions must be made quickly, designated administrators with the approval of the Board of Regents can be authorized to make decisions. Such situations are very rare, of course.
Program review and assessment have been in operation at Washburn for six years. It has become part of the institution's make-up. Senior administrators (Vice-Presidents and President) and the members of the Board of Regents are a formal part of the review process. They participate in each review and are kept informed of improvements which are brought about by the process. The assessment system was designed to minimize expense. Those broad university assessment tools, such as alumni surveys, have been made a part of the Planning Office budget. Although Washburn does not spend a great deal on assessment, there has been no evidence that an increase in funding in this area would improve the quality of the assessment program.
The major purpose of Washburn's assessment program is to lead to improvements. Each year a tabulation of improvements, brought about by program review, is collected and presented to the faculty, administrators and members of the Board of Regents (copies will be available to the evaluation team in the resource room). For example, the general education requirement was changed to require a course in music, art or theater in response to alumni surveys which showed that our graduates believed they did not receive enough exposure in these areas. Another example of change brought about by the assessment process is the new all-university writing requirement. During program review, it became apparent that what the English department was doing and what the rest of the faculty thought they were doing were different. The English department, working with a broadly-based university committee, rewrote the institution's English requirement. It was approved by a vote of the General Faculty.
The budget process is part of the formal program review. The Program Review Committee makes recommendations for future funding levels for every program that is examined. These recommendations are used in long-range planning done by the Resource, Planning and Priority Committee. The recommendations are also used by the Budget Committee in making their recommendations for equipment and educational budget increases.