Learning Resources

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan their campuses for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2023 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of two sections that provide a holistic picture of today while enabling institutions to crowdsource a vision for the future: current space use data and recent and planned changes to campus facilities.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (e.g., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., in-person student headcount).

Abstract: From 2015–2018, amidst a period of heightened activism on campuses and broader societal change, institutions of higher education renamed and de-named campus buildings with namesakes whose legacies were seen to conflict with institutional missions and community values and harmful to members of the campus and surrounding communities. In 2020, the push for addressing problematic namesakes grew exponentially, expanding beyond buildings and postsecondary education.

Effectively managing naming issues on campus and the expectations and interests of internal and external stakeholder groups is challenging, emotional, and time consuming work that has a lasting impact on the physical campus as well as institutional legacy. This research report summarizes the specific cases of US institutions that addressed a naming issue between 2014 and 2021 and what each of them chose to do when faced with this challenging decision.

Abstract: At most institutions, physical space is a resource second only to personnel, yet it may not be managed as judiciously. Using data to understand how space is allocated, how the condition of space affects use, and how the evolving nature of space use will affect future demand can contribute to optimized space utilization while supporting institutional goals. This resource is designed to support business officers and other institutional leaders in developing data-informed space utilization practices. Published by NACUBO.

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan their campuses for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2022 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of two sections that provide a holistic picture of today while enabling institutions to crowdsource a vision for the future: current space use data and recent and planned changes to campus facilities.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (e.g., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., in-person student headcount).

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2021 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of three sections that provide a holistic picture of today—while enabling institutions to crowd-source a vision for the future: Current space use data, anticipated changes to space, and qualitative space changes.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (i.e., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., enrollment, ­ 20,000).

Abstract: Historic separations that defined higher education are dissolving: research is more interdisciplinary, online and on-campus learning are converging, wet and dry labs are blending, teaching and research overlap, and academia forges relationships with corporate partners. Institutions, by improving how they connect what they offer, how they are organized, and how they operate, can build value and agility to better assist their people on campus. Real-world examples in this white paper from Knoll and brightspot strategy discuss how campus spaces support student success, including how to fully use the campus; creating spaces that sustain diverse and flexible ways of working; thinking phygitally; and creating environments where today’s purpose-driven and entrepreneurial students (Gen Z) will thrive as they prepare to enter the workforce.

Abstract: This report was produced by the research team awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2015–2016.

What will be the impact of rapidly developing online learning modalities on the campus face-to-face experience over the next decade? What might campus planners need to look out for over the next 10 years as they strive to align their institution’s virtual and physical infrastructure with its mission?

This study reviews the scholarly literature and the expert views of practitioners in campus planning (both virtual and physical) to forecast how campuses might evolve between now and 2030. It views the university as a “complex adaptive assemblage” made up of many component parts working not within a systematic framework but as separate assemblages coexisting on campus affected by uncontrollable outside forces. These separate assemblages and their interrelationships can be better understood in a campus context by using experts in the fields of learning sciences, teacher professional development, educational technologies, learning environment/campus design, and others to form a cohesive idea of how the separate parts might come together to inform the future of higher education.

Abstract: Succeeding at integrated planning at colleges and universities is a challenge. Many planning models do not work in higher education because they are not designed for higher education. Planning processes designed for corporations or non-profits do not account for the complex environment of higher education nor its unique challenges.

Many institutions struggle to leverage planning into lasting change because they create plans in a vacuum. They do not grasp the institution’s strategic issues or create a sound value proposition. They are not prepared for good planning.

To provide guidance on where to prioritize efforts, SCUP partnered with the Baker Strategy Group in 2015 to conduct a study with more than 2,200 leaders who plan at colleges and universities, and ran quantitative analysis on their responses. Several themes emerged around planning challenges and how to respond, which are explored in this report.

Abstract: This report synthesizes the trends observed by more than 90 members of SCUP’s planning academies through the 2013 fall concurrent session proposal review process for SCUP’s 2014 annual, international conference (SCUP–49). This document is a flash report of the continuing and emerging issues of interest to SCUP. It’s a reflection of what was in the minds of the academy members who participated as reviewers for the SCUP–49 concurrent proposal selection process, and of those desiring to contribute to SCUP’s body of knowledge through their program submission.

Abstract: This report synthesizes the trends observed by more than 90 members of SCUP’s planning academies through the 2012 fall concurrent session proposal review process for SCUP’s 2013 annual, international conference (SCUP–48). This document is a flash report of the continuing and emerging issues of interest to SCUP. It’s a reflection of what was in the minds of the academy members who participated as reviewers for the SCUP–48 concurrent proposal selection process, and of those desiring to contribute to SCUP’s body of knowledge through their program submission.