Marjorie Hass of
Rhodes College (TN), Lawrence M. Schall of
Oglethorpe University (GA), Mary Dana Hinton of the
College of Saint Benedict (MN), and James M. Dennis of
McKendree University (IL), sharing their approaches to leading healthy institutions.
“How do presidents measure the health of their institutions? There are many metrics to measure institutional health, including business and financial as well as cultural and mission health,” stipulated
Marjorie Hass, president of
Rhodes College (TN), and moderator of the Presidents Institute closing plenary session on “Presidential Leadership for Healthy Institutions.” Hass engaged panelists
James M. Dennis of
McKendree University (IL),
Mary Dana Hinton of the
College of Saint Benedict (MN), and
Lawrence M. Schall of
Oglethorpe University (GA) in an open conversation about how they achieved healthy institutions and sustainable models amid unprecedented challenges.
Schall recounted that when he arrived at Oglethorpe 15 years ago, he found that the university was facing a structural deficit, rising discounts, and declining enrollment. He immediately worked with the board of directors to determine how to make payroll, so they “canceled searches, suspended pension benefits, and asked the faculty to tear up their contracts…. It was hard for morale.”
The second phase focused on “increasing enrollment, achieving a balanced budget, and tackling deferred maintenance projects.” The first guiding principle was that operating expenses had to equal tuition fees plus room and board. “That set us on a healthy path,” Schall noted. The administration was able to restore contracts and pension benefits, and in the past five years, Schall said, “we have tackled more ambitious goals, with a $110 million campaign, a retention rate of 85 percent, and much better metrics.”
Hinton explained that the College of Saint Benedict’s mission is to educate women and particularly marginalized women—the daughters of immigrants and farmers—who would otherwise be overlooked. “Our institutional health relies on fidelity to that original mission…. Our foundational question over the past five years has been ‘Who and how are we called to serve today?’” A balanced budget and endowment growth are certainly key measures of the college’s health, but more than that, Hinton emphasized, is a focus on a healthy organizational culture as well as “our own health, enabling and empowering us to do our jobs and enjoy our families.”
To do that, and to translate that mission for students today, Hinton listed the four points of alignment (Mission, Activity, Resources, and Will) that define Saint Ben’s institutional health: “Recognize that our mission commitment is to enable full access and absolute success for every woman who enrolls; work to ensure that our daily activity is targeted toward that mission commitment; ensure that all of our resources—human, financial, and other—are in support of that mission; and ensure that our communal will is enabling our institutional health.” Saint Ben is on a healthy path as it has worked to build up and support faculty and staff members; closed the retention rate for American students of color so that it is the same as that for all students (87 percent); and increased the endowment by 65 percent.
McKendree University initially faced similar challenges, noted Dennis. “When I arrived at McKendree, we had 800 students. We have since significantly increased enrollment…which now stands at 2,400 students.” Regarding institutional health, he said “most of us think of financial health, but it’s more than that—ethical, moral, and mental health” also are incredibly important indicators of institutional health. “My biggest challenge when I arrived on campus was convincing the faculty that they were better than they thought they were. There was a lack of self-confidence among faculty members…and the institution was filled with challenges.”
To strengthen the university, Dennis said he “spent a lot of time affirming and convincing people that they were good at their jobs and trying to create an environment where faculty and staff members believed in themselves.” He saw a “great transition on campus because people actually started doing things that they hadn’t done before and had confidence.” As a result, the institution expanded, as did fundraising. “This year we’re closing on a $19 million calendar year—which is the largest in the history of the institution.” He added, “I believe institutional health stems from the mission statement, feeds down through the leadership, has to be inculcated within the senior administrative team, and permeates all the way down through the institution.”
In answer to Hass’s question about the role of the board in institutional health, Hinton replied that although she inherited a strong board and leadership team, she wanted to shift to a “governance as leadership” model that relies on three modes of leadership: fiduciary, strategic, and generative. With this model, she said “the board demands clean audits and a balanced budget, has a forward-thinking attitude with sights set on 15 years down the road, and has the ability to tackle tough questions with a focus more on framing the right questions than on generating a single answer.”
The best board chairs, stated Dennis, are those who “appreciate and understand what we’re trying to do as an institution, have a commitment to assisting and supporting us in that role, understand the importance of board activity as it relates to generating resources for the institution, and let the administration manage the institution on a daily basis.”
Regarding the role of communication in ensuring an institution’s health in periods of change, Dennis and Schall both emphasized the importance of communicating with external as well as internal communities. “You need allies—students, faculty, and/or trustees to buy into the change,” said Dennis. When Schall began communicating “a new, engaged vision to the external community—that Oglethorpe is an institution that cares about being a good citizen—this changed a lot of the metrics, changed how people perceive the institution, and had a massive result on our philanthropy.”
Echoing Dennis, Hinton remarked, “Part of being a change agent is helping the community believe they are capable of great things.” She added that effective leadership is the willingness to be in a relationship with every person in the community. “Our community will only thrive collectively…. It starts with a strategic plan that is a shared vision in which everyone can see themselves in your institutional vision, mission, and priorities.… If you do that well internally, people will spread the word for you externally.”
Hass asked panelists, “What advice would you give to a younger version of yourself in making your institution successful and healthy?” Dennis said the advice that has guided him is that, “when making decisions, solicit information from others, listen carefully, then do what you think is the right thing to do.” Also, ask the question: “For what issue do you want to die on your sword?”
Panelists Share Strategies for Leading Fundamental Change
Several other Presidents Institute sessions explored institutional health, strategies for change, working with the board on strategic priorities, and related topics.
A ballroom-capacity crowd and lively question-and-answer session demonstrated that how to lead and set the pace for fundamental institutional change is at the forefront of many presidents’ minds. Opening the session “Setting the Pace: Presidential Strategies for Leading Fundamental Change,” moderator Susan Resneck Pierce, president emerita of the
University of Puget Sound (WA), summarized the concerns of many campus leaders today: declining enrollments, escalating tuition discounts, declining net tuition revenue, unsustainable debt, and extensive deferred maintenance. But as Daniel A. DiBiasio, president of
Ohio Northern University, David Finegold, president of
Chatham University (PA), and Mary B. Marcy, president of
Dominican University of California, demonstrated these are not times to passively await the inevitable. Instead, institutions should capitalize on their particular strengths and opportunities as well as the long history of innovation and adaptation of CIC institutions.
Marcy advised that presidents first need to recognize and reduce “the tension between the need for fast change and conventional campus planning” and then focus on finding the right balance between speed and shared governance. “Dominican at 130,” she explained, “is a strategic plan for three years that consists of three big initiatives” with students at the center: enrollment management and program innovation, general education delivered through the Dominican Experience, and curriculum alignment (“the heavy lift”). The promise of delivering integrative coaching, community engagement, digital portfolios, and a signature work experience, such as a research project or a business plan, to each student “has been a game changer for us.” It has improved enrollment, lifted retention and four-year graduation rates, and strengthened the bottom line, supporting a goal of adding $800,000 to the operating budget and $2.8 million to total net assets. “For Dominican,” Marcy emphasized, “the cycle of innovation, implementation, assessment, further innovation, and alignment” will be the new normal.
In Ohio Northern’s case, DiBiasio shared frankly that expensive benefits programs, including full post-retirement health insurance coverage and extensive retirement bonuses, added to the common post-recession budget stressors of enrollment and net tuition declines and led to structural deficits. “We quickly realized,” he noted, “that our annual budget balancing efforts were ineffective because they were too tactical and not very strategic.” His answer was to “focus on permanent bottom-line improvements” with an emphasis on cost reductions since the “ongoing revenue initiatives were helping, but not fast enough.” Under the university’s Foundation for Our Future Project umbrella, DiBiasio sought proposals for strategically targeted expense reductions and investments in people, programs, and activities “where a reasonable ROI can be expected.” All proposals had to “sustain Ohio Northern’s quality, value, outcomes, and reputation.” A review of 257 programs (111 academic and 146 administrative) and 72 institutional case studies over an aggressive 15-month timeline resulted in more than 250 recommendations. The recommendations implemented netted an approximately $10 million reduction in expenses through the discontinuation of ten academic programs (impacting only 45 or 1.5 percent of students), the elimination of 51 positions (35 by attrition), and a modest increase in the student-faculty ratio (from 11 to 13:1). Key to the success of the process was a total commitment to evaluation and decision-making transparency, with all reports, evaluations, and decisions made available to employees on a password protected portal. As further takeaways, DiBiasio noted that the project team needs freedom and responsibility, alumni should be kept informed and engaged, trustees should be informed but not involved, and presidents need to expect that “morale will move up and down” during such a process. Finally, he noted that presidents are highly likely “to eat too much when stressed.”
Finegold placed current initiatives in the context of Chatham’s past three decades, in which multiple waves of strategic reinvention occurred—including changing from a college to a university and becoming coeducational. “What scares me,” he admitted, “is the dramatic decline in our customer base. Competition is increasing. Pressure on aid is intensely strong.” In addition to demographic and cost pressures as well as technological change, he argued that “we all have to consider climate change” as a major factor. To start generating innovative ideas, Finegold met separately with every faculty member. But to think big, he argued, “you really need somebody to constantly think about change while the core is continuing.” He also advocated for creating a “futures group within the board” to identify objectives, the range of options, and proposal evaluation criteria. Finally, he emphasized that everything needs to be on the table—from strategic alliances to mergers and acquisitions to creating affiliate networks. “
Session Provides Insights on Mergers, Acquisitions, and Teach-Outs
During a Presidents Institute session on “Strategies for Mergers, Acquisitions, and Teach-Outs,” those who have navigated the process shared insights from their experiences.
While “optimistic about the sector as a whole,” Kasia Lundy, managing director of the consulting firm EY-Parthenon, noted that financial viability is becoming an existential concern, especially for smaller institutions hard hit by regional enrollment declines. For example, among all private nonprofit institutions “40 percent saw expense growth increase by 5 percentage points or more above revenue growth from 2012 to 2017,” and “31 percent saw cumulative decreases in fall enrollment greater than 10 percent” during the same timeframe. To allow institutions to assess their situation, Lundy and her colleagues developed the Student Educational Resources (SER) metric that “captures in a single score the percentage of existing students that a given institution can teach all the way through graduation given existing resources.” Depending on the outcomes of such risk assessments, Lundy advised that institutions consider response strategies—ranging from incremental to highly transformative, from stand alone to transformative partnerships—and to do so actively and deliberately rather than reactively.
Co-panelists David R. Evans, interim president of the
American University in Bulgaria and former president of
Southern Vermont College, Timothy L. Hall, president of
Mercy College (NY), and Michele D. Perkins, president of
New England College (NH), walked participants through the processes by which their institutions arrived at transformative change in the form of closure, teach-out, and merger. Evans noted that when he arrived at Southern Vermont in 2015, the campus was already facing the familiar weaknesses of a small institution in that region of the country; but it was a significant and unusual incident that broke the campuses’ “financial back.” Absent resources to invest in consultants and with no promising merger partner available, the board rather quickly determined to close the campus. From then on, Evans’s focus shifted to orchestrating an orderly exit. Evans noted “what I am most proud of is that we took care of all our students” by placing them with former competitors where they could achieve their academic goals. He also made sure “that all faculty and staff got paid” before handing over the keys.
Hall explained that Mercy ended up in a teach-out situation after a financial crisis at the College of New Rochelle (resulting in a $20 million debt to the IRS, $10 million in undisclosed debt, and $50 million of known debt that eventually led to its bankruptcy). While initially considering a merger that looked promising from a program and location acquisition perspective, in the end that possibility represented too great a risk for Mercy to take on, Hall noted. Instead, the two institutions set up a transfer agreement in which College of New Rochelle students in good standing could seamlessly transfer to Mercy. Hall emphasized that while temporarily integrating large numbers of additional students and faculty members was challenging, the agreement combined with some program expansion gave Mercy access to a larger student stream for years to come.
Recalling the tale of how her institution acquired the New Hampshire Institute of Art, Perkins too emphasized that strategic partnership opportunities need to be carefully vetted and fit the institutional context. For example, operating a rural and an urban campus “works for us and the programs we want to offer, but that doesn’t mean it would be a good solution for everybody.” She warned participants not to underestimate the effort it takes to pull off even a promising opportunity. Getting from initial conversations in October 2017, to signing an MOU in May 2018, to the full merger filing in July 2019 “was incredibly labor intensive” she noted; “I think I worked on it every single day.” Among the recommendations she listed are to “get boards and the community involved as early as possible” but “keep negotiations confidential as long as possible;” understand the full financial picture including endowment rules, existing debt, and costs; name a senior point person and hire expert legal and consultant advice; and be candid with your negotiating partners and “recognize that your own position will evolve.” Perhaps most critical, “know when to walk away.” As Lundy concurred, “a merger isn’t necessarily always better than a closure; it needs to work for everybody.”
Presidents Recommend Ways to Focus Boards of Trustees on Strategic Priorities
There is no “one size fits all” approach to focusing boards of trustees on strategic priorities. In fact, presidents use a number of approaches to help their boards resist the tendency to function in routinized ways, such as reviewing reports, setting tuition, and approving budgets. Some of the strategies used to focus boards depend on the preference of the president and his or her leadership style, while others are a matter of institutional mission and history. During a dynamic and informative panel, Gayle D. Beebe, president of
Westmont College (CA), Rock Jones, president of
Ohio Wesleyan University, and Elizabeth J. Stroble, chancellor of
Webster University (MO), discussed tactics they use to help their boards be savvy about demographic and economic trends; cognizant of institutional strengths and areas of vulnerability; and sensitive to market opportunities. Boards of trustees nurtured in those ways, the panelists agreed, can best help presidents make important strategic decisions about the future direction of their institutions.
Each president shared several successful approaches to guiding their boards to help effectively lead the institution in today’s higher education environment. Examples include:
-
Seek board members who reflect the student body and institutional priorities.
The board of trustees should be representative of the student body and the institution’s priorities. If an institution is diverse, it is important that boards are diverse in experience, age, gender, and ethnicity. If an institution has a student body that is mostly local, but also has international campuses, seek a couple board members who live locally but work or have worked for a multinational corporation. A board that reflects the institution will ultimately help lead to more effective discussions about institutional issues and priorities.
-
Prioritize strategic over the routine.
To engage board members in conversations that are critical to the institution’s success, presidents should prioritize strategic over routine agenda topics. This will encourage the board to think strategically from the onset. A board portal can be used for advance review of minutes, charters, and supplemental documents that support topics of both strategic and routine discussion. Posing “big picture” questions will help engage board members in open-ended conversations.
-
Convene an annual board retreat focused on a single subject or issue.
Provide the board with an opportunity to meet once a year in a retreat setting in order to focus on a long-term strategy, while also helping to build relationships between board members and between board members and faculty and staff leaders. The retreat should focuse on one key strategic issue that is of particular importance to the institution; retreat plenary and discussion sessions should center on aspects of this subject.
-
Establish expectations for board members at the beginning of their terms.
The board of trustees, working with the chair of the board and the president, should help define specific criteria and expectations for new board members. And the board chair should help communicate these expectations to new board members. This strategy helps ensure that board members know from the onset the role of the board in relation to the institution’s mission and goals as well as their specific purpose as it relates to their service on the board.
These clear strategies for focusing the board on issues of largest import to an institution should be adapted to line up well with a president’s leadership style as well as the needs of the institution.
Workshop Examines Effective Approaches to Tuition Resets
Laura Casamento, president of
Utica College (NY), sharing a case study during the workshop “Tuition Pricing Considerations —Is a Reset Right for Your Institution?”
A workshop on tuition pricing considerations closely examined the economics behind tuition resets and successful approaches that two colleges have taken to introduce new pricing models. Lucie Lapovsky, principal of Lapovsky Consulting and former president of
Mercy College (NY), Laura Casamento, president of
Utica College (NY), and Sharon Latchaw Hirsh, president of
Rosemont College (PA), led the two-hour workshop.
Lapovsky shared data from a recent Longmire and Company study that revealed that 32 percent of students and parents do not consider a private college on the basis of its published price alone. And 60 percent reported that they are unaware that most private colleges discount their sticker price. Lapovsky also referenced research by Sallie May that showed that 63 percent of students eliminate colleges and universities originally in consideration solely on the basis of the published tuition price. Moreover, 56 percent of families eliminate an institution without any research beyond its published price. These chilling statistics were underscored by comparing the income levels of students at public four-year institutions to those of students at private four-year institutions. With public institutions now attracting a larger share of higher income students, private colleges and universities are at risk among affluent students.
Additional data that Lapovsky shared painted a clear picture of trends in college choice related to price and pointed to rationales and approaches that support a price reset. Above all, said Lapovsky, “A price reset should work at the top of the [recruitment] funnel.” That is, it should increase and diversify an institution’s applicant pool.
Lapovsky suggested that participants consider a reset if their institutions are experiencing declining inquiry and applicant pools, declining enrollment, flat net tuition revenue, excess capacity, nearly universal institutional aid, a discount rate of more than 50 percent, and competition from lower-priced competitors. She further guided participants through potential risks and rewards and shared a worksheet they could follow with their campus teams to review the potential economic impact of a reset.
Examining another aspect of tuition resets—marketing—Casamento and Hirsh shared case studies of how their institutions marketed lower tuition to ensure that the decision had the greatest impact on enrollment strategy.
Utica College took two years to work through its reset strategy before announcing the change in 2015. Casamento worked closely with her board to review the factors that led to the decision and to ensure that Utica’s messaging was unified and focused. She reported that the perceptions of affordability among potential applicants improved significantly. Before the reset, as many as 77 percent saw tuition as too high; after the reset, that number dropped to 52 percent. Utica’s reset implementation phases included planning, awareness building, announcement publicity, post-announcement awareness, and a corresponding schedule of activities for each phase.
Rosemont College also took nearly two years to develop and launch its new tuition strategy. Marketing figured prominently in the roll-out and included extensive communications training for trustees. The college positioned the change as the right thing to do for the institution and for families and, as an early adopter of a reset strategy, established Rosemont as a leader in the higher education marketplace. Rosemont’s marketing campaign, which included broad media placement and interviews with national and regional press, used the theme, “Our Tuition Promise,” to communicate not only the campaign messages, but also to acknowledge Rosemont’s decision to stop playing the game of high sticker prices and deep discounts. According to Hirsh, “This decision was based first and foremost on a desire to be a leader in reforming a broken model.”
Like Utica, Rosemont experienced positive results: a 33 percent increase in the number of entering students, a 60 percent increase in the percentage of middle-income students, and a steady rise in GPAs among incoming students.
Session Considers Benchmarks for Institutional Health
The session “Benchmarks for Institutional Health” discussed the metrics presidents can rely on to understand what their institutions need to achieve to be strong and sustainable. Bobby L. Hall, president of
Wayland Baptist University (TX), and Michael Williams, former senior executive at Ruffalo Noel Levitz (RNL), who developed the Key Indicators Tool (KIT) and Financial Indicators Tool (FIT) for CIC, engaged in a data-informed conversation about what data can—and cannot—indicate when it comes to an institution’s financial health. They also discussed what benchmarks are useful in monitoring an institution’s financial health.
Wayland Baptist University is a Christian institution with rural, agricultural roots that educates 4,700 traditional and nontraditional students using face-to-face, online, and hybrid modalities on 13 campuses and at 50 teaching sites in six states. From a historical perspective, Hall commented that Wayland has been “up and down, but never out.” He then explained the most common performance indicators (financial, admissions, enrollment, faculty, student outcomes, student engagement, academics, physical plant, satisfaction, research, and external ratings) used by institutions and boards based on a 2011 article by Dawn Terkla in the Association of Governing Boards’
Trusteeship magazine. Using these indicators as a jumping-off point, Hall discussed the standard financial indicators monitored at Wayland, such as net revenue per credit hour, net operating margin, overall change in net assets, cash and investments to operations, and financial ratios.
After this introduction, Williams used data from Wayland’s FIT report to point out where the institution was performing more robustly than similar institutions. (The FIT is an annual customized benchmarking report that provides an assessment of an institution’s financial performance over time, benchmarked against similar institutions;
view more information about FIT.) He then asked Hall to expand upon Wayland’s strategies. They were best described as “entrepreneurial,” ranging from investigating wind farms, oil rights, mineral rights, and agricultural rights on property owned by Wayland to negotiating paid daytime building use by other entities, since Wayland’s classes are largely held at night. Hall also mentioned strategies of holding tuition discounting down as much as possible and reexamining budgets on a continuous basis to find cost savings (for example, making sure specialty software licenses are actually being used enough to warrant the expense).
The session illustrated that—with careful fiscal, organizational, and programmatic management—smaller, rural institutions with below-average resources can achieve sound financial operating outcomes. In short, a college doesn’t have to be wealthy to be healthy.