Learning Resources

Abstract: This report was produced by the researcher awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2016–2017.

This research evaluates the role the campus built environment plays in student retention and graduation. The relationship between objective and perceived measures of the physical campus and student academic performance was examined using the California State University (CSU) campuses as the sample. The results show that both objective and perceived measures are significantly associated with academic performance and provide higher education institutions with insight regarding the role of the physical campus in enhancing student retention and graduation rates.

Abstract: The study described in this article investigated diversity in a unit within a postsecondary institution using the model described by Cox in Creating the Multicultural Organization by verifying the unit’s view of diversity, examining existing strategies used for diversity, evaluating consistencies, and identifying areas of improvement. The study included an analysis of unit employees to verify broad diversity by race and gender and an interview with senior leadership about the strategic plan for the unit on matters related to diversity. Overall analysis showed that the unit is doing better than most peer institutions in hiring female and minority candidates for positions. However, there are gaps in the unit’s approach to diversity that impact its ability to be an effective multicultural organization.

Abstract: Public-Private Partnership (“P3”) procurement models for built infrastructure serving higher learning institutions started to gain attention in North America in the late 1990s—mostly as an alternative approach to adding student housing at select universities and colleges. More recently, P3 models have been applied to a diverse range of higher learning projects, with some serving core academic and research functions.

Although many institutions are considering P3 approaches among their options to address emerging pressures to expand or update their facilities, their implementation is not yet common. The researcher’s intention was to better understand P3 models and learn how they have performed, possibly generating some useful lessons for how P3 models can be applied with desired outcomes.

Abstract: Planners and institutional leaders need to understand the relevance of digital capabilities and IT capacity as they relate to student success. This session will improve your understanding of digital capabilities needed to achieve student success and discuss how you can inform integrated planning efforts with IT benchmarking data. You will learn how to assess your institution’s digital capacity for student success technologies so you can affect costs and improve outcomes with new analytics tools and services.

Abstract: Institutions are managing numerous student success initiatives simultaneously, but they lack the necessary data and infrastructure to evaluate outcomes. They also struggle to clearly link a particular initiative to a specific individual outcome. Using prediction-based propensity score matching (PPSM), a methodology compliant with the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse’s requirements, we facilitated the analysis of key initiatives to measure efficacy, ensuring that outcomes of students participating are compared to control students with similar propensity. The recent work explored in this article helps two institutions understand the impact of their innovation and more precisely scale student support.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.

Abstract: This article introduces an emerging, innovative practice in higher education: Integrated Planning and Advising for Student Success (iPASS). A research-based iPASS implementation framework is examined through a case study of Guttman Community College (CUNY), which is one year into its iPASS work. This case study, which shares practices and initial findings that include high levels of student, faculty, and staff engagement, is relevant to practitioners and academic leaders considering the use of, or in the early stages of, an iPASS approach, as well as those interested in effectively integrating technology that leads to improved student success and transformative institutional change.