Learning Resources

Abstract: The “Greater College Park Initiative” is a signature multi-year effort in President Wallace Loh’s leadership and administration to continue positive town/gown relations with development that enhances both the university campus and surrounding communities.

This talk provided an overview of University of Maryland's (UMD) strategic plan and how it is supported by the five-year update to the university’s facilities master plan, approved in 2017. It discussed current local and regional planning initiatives as well as campus and community development projects, including the associated partnerships and collaborations with municipal, organizational, and private-sector partners.

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: 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: The advantages of thoughtful, well-structured strategic planning and decentralized budgeting are numerous. But they bring different and sometimes conflicting perspectives to high-stakes discussions within the institution. By recognizing and preparing for these tensions, the odds increase that their potential benefits will not be eroded or eclipsed by distractions or destructive forces and they can work in harmony to help an institution accomplish its goals in an increasingly challenging environment. The author considers specific tensions and conflicts and draws on the experience of a flagship public university to suggest ways to manage these tensions and reap the benefits of both approaches.

Abstract: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.

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.