Part I: Analysis of Institutional Strengths, Weaknesses and Significant Problems and Description of Analysis Process

Reader's Questions: To what extent does the institution clearly and comprehensively analyze the strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of its academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability? To what extent does the information about the strengths, weaknesses and significant problems result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution?

Academic Program Strengths

1. Millikin Serves a Diverse Student Body
The growing ethnic/racial diversity of Millikin's student body is linked to James Millikin's belief in the value of a broad and diverse student body: 1) 96% of students receive financial aid; 2) enrollment of minority students at Millikin has increased by 104% to 11% of the student body over the past 10 years; 3) 43% of Millikin students are "first generation" in that neither parent completed a four-year college degree; 4) 25% of first-year students in 2000 reported family incomes below $40,000, compared to 11.3% for a peer group of highly selective private universities; 5) the number of students coming from outside Millikin's traditional geographic base in central Illinois (small towns, farms, etc.) has also grown; and 6) a 1999 ACE study gave Millikin a diversity index of 21, placing it in the top quartile among its peer institutions and in the top half among its aspiration institutions.

2. Many Students Take Advantage of Millikin's Array of Programs 
The founder's vision for Millikin emphasized that students should study the liberal arts as well as career-oriented fields. That vision is reflected in the University's structure, with four distinct schools. Millikin offers more than 50 different major degrees, as well as three interdisciplinary degrees and 25 possible minors. Students may choose to take majors in one school and minors from another, or take courses outside their own schools to broaden their horizons.  More than 200 students, or just under 10% of the student body, pursued programs in more than one school in Spring 2000: 62 students had double majors in two schools and 146 students had a major in one school and a minor in another. The richness of this structure is also expensive to maintain.

3. The Millikin Program of Student Learning is a Model for Educational Integration
Millikin University adopted the Millikin Program of Student Learning (MPSL) in 1995 to provide an integrated educational process that better melds traditional liberal arts and professional studies. The MPSL has been hailed as a model curriculum for undergraduate education. In 1999 the Association of American Colleges and Universities awarded Millikin with a Special Commendation for Distinguished Achievement in Undergraduate Education in recognition of the MPSL. Less than 1% of America's colleges and universities were so honored. 


4. The Focus of Faculty is on Teaching
Seventy-six percent of seniors graduating in 2001 either "strongly agreed" or "agreed" with the statement that "I am satisfied with the overall education I received at Millikin." Students appreciate the strong relationship with faculty who, although they also pursue research or performance careers, are first and foremost teachers and advisors. The standard faculty teaching load at Millikin is four courses per semester. For promotion and tenure, teaching ranks as the most important activity. In the 1999 Noel-Levitz Student Inventory, Millikin students closely mirrored a national sample in their approval of academic advising, instructional effectiveness and student centeredness.

Academic Program Weaknesses

1. Retention of Under-prepared Students is Too Low
A 1999 comparison of a three-year average of freshman-sophomore retention for peer institutions showed only one other school with a lower retention rate than Millikin's 78%. Between spring and fall in 2000 the rate was 77 per cent, lower than all but one of a group of schools with which Millikin was compared in U.S. News and World Report's College guide (November 2000). The six-year graduation rate for Millikin students entering in 1994 was 61%, and in 1993 was 66%. The three-year average (1988-2000) for peer institutions is 65.3%, and for aspiration institutions 71.6%. Millikin hopes to improve retention overall by implementing various strategies.

Of particular concern are students with identifiable risk factors. Students with weaker high school records have a 55% retention rate. The rate for African American students was 68% and that of other minority students 70%.
A 2001 Noel-Levitz survey of Millikin students without declared majors (Exploratory Studies) indicated that, compared to a national norm, they were more prone to drop out, were expected to have academic difficulties, and experienced educational stress. Female Exploratory Studies participants were further below or above the national norms in all of these areas than male students. Advising strategies targeting at risk students should help these students' succeed at Millikin. 

2. Faculty Members Carry a Heavy Workload
The typical teaching workload for Millikin faculty is eight courses a year (4-4 load). As of 1998-99 only 30% of Millikin's peer institutions or benchmark schools had a similar load (26% had a 4-3 load and 44% a 3-3 load).
An added workload issue is the uneven distribution of advising responsibilities. Although the overall student-faculty ratio is 14:1, there is uneven distribution across departments. Recent data showed an advising load for the University as a whole was 18:1. While the College of Arts and Sciences load was 16:1, and 17:1 for the Schools of Fine Arts and Nursing, it was 33:1 at the Tabor School. Even within the College of Arts and Sciences, however, there are vast differences. The most extreme case is the advising load in the Teacher Education Program (part of Arts and Sciences) was 65:1 in 1998-99.

The issue of a workload is complicated by compensation that is below the norm. According to AAUP data (2000), the salary of a full professor at Millikin is about 4% below those of peer institutions and 9% below those of aspiration institutions. Rates for associate professors are 1% above peer schools and 2% below aspiration schools. For assistant professors compensation is 9% below peers and 15% below aspiration.

Institutional Management Strengths

1. Millikin Has Developed a Strong Relationship with its Host Community
Millikin University is an active partner in the social, educational, artistic, recreational, and business life of Decatur. As the only four-year institution in Macon County, it both contributes to and draws upon community resources. 
* Millikin and the city jointly developed an indoor recreation center for both communities.
* Millikin has worked with local businesses to foster "Campus Town," an area where students may go off campus for meals and recreation;
* More than 120 local schools, human service agencies, health agencies, and arts organizations receive the benefit of Service Learning activities at Millikin. All Millikin first-year students and seniors must participate in service learning.
* More than 200 businesses and agencies served as internship sites for Millikin students between 1990 and 2000, many of them repeatedly through the decade. 
* Millikin volunteers assist local educational and social service agencies (such as Homework Hangout and Project Read Literacy Project), social initiatives (such as Black History Month) and economic development (such as Service Corps of Retired Executives).
* The University and its departments also provide a range of professional services to the community. For example, the Tabor Center of Entrepreneurship provides small business development counseling, leadership and supervisory training programs.

2. The University's Board Has a Strong Commitment to the University
The members of the Millikin Board of Trustees have demonstrated their commitment to the University by committing, as a group, to donate $9 million towards the $45 million extended capital campaign goal now under way. The Board has achieved 100% participation in the campaign and all trustees are considering three-part gifts: annual support, capital pledges paid over five years and estate commitments. The Board participates actively in numerous committees, interacting directly with students, staff, faculty, administration, and the Decatur community on a regular basis. For example, Board members visit classes one or more times annually.

3. Enrollment Has Grown Steadily
Since 1995 enrollment at Millikin has increased from 1882 to 2389 (Fall 2001), or 27%. This increase is part of an overall institutional goal of 2500 enrollment. At the same time the average freshman ACT scores have increased by 3.5% from 23.1 to 23.9. The percentage of incoming freshmen in the top quartile of their high school classes has been above 50% for the past three years. Thus, Millikin has been able to grow its student population without sacrificing the quality of the student academic profile. It is hoped that growing the student body to 2500 will allow for increased minority enrollments.

Institutional Management Weaknesses

1. The Growth of the University Has Strained Its Sense of Community 
The number of employees at Millikin has grown by 10%, and faculty by 40% since 1995. There is a perception among faculty and staff that the structure of communication and governance has lagged behind the evolution of Millikin University from a small university to a larger institution.

New faculty members, in particular, have found it difficult to become integrated. New tenure-line faculty at a May 2001 retreat reported a range of difficulties. These included an initial heavy workload, little support or time for continued scholarly pursuits, inconsistency in mentoring by tenured faculty, few opportunities to meet with other faculty members in situations that focused on academic and scholarly issues, and the absence of consistent access to information on events and issues on campus. The Title III Task Force and Advisory Committee have also noted that new faculty members, in particular, are likely to be overwhelmed by the complexities of the MPSL.

2. Student Services are Impacted by Understaffing
During the past seven years, as the enrollment at Millikin has grown by 27%, the number of employees at the University has grown 10% from 535 to 589. Much of the increased staffing was in instruction staff. Non-instructional personnel increased by only 3.7%. Anecdotal information indicates that this has created a morale problem among staff, only part of which has been addressed through strengthened compensation.

Understaffing has serious implications throughout the University, but none more so that in Student Life and Academic Development. From 1995 to 2001 the student body has grown from circa 1800 to over 2300 while the Student Life and Academic Development Staff has remained static at around twenty positions. Only one person coordinates the University's staff and faculty responses to 125 students who were on academic probation at the start of the Spring 2002 term. 

Fiscal Stability Strengths

1. The President and Board Have Established Strong Fiscal Guidelines
The President and Board have published a comprehensive set of financial guidelines designed to ensure rigorous fiscal controls. Highlights from the guidelines include: 1) approval of the annual endowment spending rate; 2) execution of funded, designated projects under a three year rolling plan; 3) requirements that funding be in hand before capital planning and execution may begin; 4) parameters and policy on debt; and 5) specific financial goals and performance measures.

2. The University Is Committed to and Moving Towards Competitive Salaries
The Centennial Priorities Committee set a commitment to a five-year compensation plan to bring those most below the norm up to competitive salaries. The goal is to "Increase faculty, staff, and administration compensation using benchmarked criteria." A first phase was put into place in December 2001, retroactive to July 1, 2001, to increase staff and assistant professor base salaries and to move salaries of people who have a tenure five years or more to the median compensation level.

3. Millikin Has Extended a Successful Capital Campaign and Has Seen the Endowment Grow
Millikin launched a $75 million capital campaign in 1996 for urgent physical improvements, scholarship and other endowment funds. In late 2001, with $91 million in commitments, the University extended the capital campaign to a goal of $120 million to be raised by 2006. Funds have been used for the new Leighty-Tabor Science Center, the Perkinson Music Center, and endowments for faculty development, chairs and lectureships. Of the funds raised, $42 million represents deferred commitments. Within the next ten years the majority of these commitments should be realized.

In 1998 the endowment of Millikin University was $52.2 million. Peer schools have an average endowment of $45.5 million. Aspiration schools have an endowment of $90.6 million. The endowment in 2001 was $60 million and part of the impact of the present capital campaign is that the endowment will continue to grow as pledged gifts are realized.

Fiscal Stability Weaknesses

1. The Rate at Which the Endowment Is Being Drawn Down Is Not Healthy
The University has been drawing on its endowment at a rate well above the 5% norm in recent years. The Board and Administration has established a goal of reducing the annual use of endowment proceeds to five percent by fiscal year 2005. While the aggressive use of endowment income could be sustained during the late 1990s it now represents a serious risk of deteriorating the University's capital reserves, which the Board considers unacceptable. In particular, the erosion of endowment threatens the level of available scholarship support, a consequence that the Board considers dangerous to a private institution of Millikin's size. During periods of weak return on endowment investment, even a 5% draw must be carefully considered and non-traditional sources of revenue pursued.

2. The University Has a Heavy Debt Load
Millikin had a debt of $46,389,598 on June 30, 2001, which is $14 million less than the value of the endowment and higher than the $41,367,810 FY 2001 expense budget for the University. The service on this debt is a significant annual operating cost.

Analysis of Major Problems

Analysis of Major Academic Program Problems

Students Who Enter the University Under-prepared for the Rigors of the Millikin Program of Student Learning Are Unlikely to Graduate
In 2000-2001, Millikin graduated the first cohort of students who spent four years in the Millikin Program of Student Learning (MPSL). While there are indicators of success for the MPSL, including increasing student satisfaction, the implementation of the program is uneven and faculty orientation to the subtleties of the program is lacking, resulting in inadequate student advice and counsel, as well as increasing demand on an understaffed support system for those students in jeopardy. 
Because of the demands of MPSL, strong student advising and co-curricular support is critical. It is particularly important for those students who come to Millikin without a declared major area of study (Exploratory Studies) or those who arrive with academic weaknesses of one kind or another. Despite the rising profile of Millikin students, the retention rate, as compared to its peer and aspiration institutions, suggests that some students are impacted negatively. The low retention rate at Millikin increases the cost of recruiting students and results in a disproportionate scheduling of first-year courses and first-year support systems.

Linked to the needs of all Millikin students, but especially those with a higher-than-average likelihood of leaving before graduation, are weaknesses in the present advising system. A major theme during the Centennial Planning Committee's process in 2000-2001 was the need for a stronger system for advising. However, The Ad-hoc Subcommittee and the Title III Task force found the University faces a number of challenges in meeting the advising needs of students:

* The learning curve for new faculty is steep given the complexities of MPSL;
* Scheduling has come to be confused with the far more complicated advising process, according to students and faculty members involved in the planning process;
* The advising work load is very uneven across the University and very heavy for some faculty members;
* Faculty members are not evaluated specifically and uniformly on their role as advisors, nor is advising recognized separately in promotion and tenure decisions. Instead, it is subsumed under teaching responsibilities;
* Existing faculty need ongoing MPSL orientation and advising support, including technological support.

Student access to a strong advising system is particularly important for students who come to Millikin without a declared area of study, transfer in from other institutions, or arrive with academic weaknesses.  A University ad-hoc committee studied the advising issue for two years, including participating in national meetings. Research suggests that the link between advising (particularly during the first year) and retention is strong. In examining options for advising, University committees have made a commitment to advising by teaching faculty members rather than the use of a corps of persons who only advise. This decision was made, in part, because research suggests this is the best model, but at Millikin it is particularly important in professional schools (business, nursing, education, fine arts). 

Analysis of Major Institutional Management Problems

Enrollment Growth, Without Commensurate Increases in Student Support Staff, Limits the Ability to Meet the Needs of Under-prepared Students
Millikin has grown from 1,800 students to nearly 2,400 students over the past decade. At the same time the overall academic standards for those students has risen. Millikin, however, remains committed to the education of a diverse student body-diverse educationally, socially, racially and economically. This does mean that some of the students are admitted to Millikin because they do have promise, come to the University with educational weaknesses. Internal studies indicate that the students at highest risk have not completed all of their core high school subjects, are first generation students, or are minority students.

The growth of the University over the past decade, however, has not been linked with a corresponding growth in the support services necessary to maintain student success and, as a result, retention has dropped. This has put particular demands on Student Life and Academic Development (SLAD) functions, which are charged with providing co-curricular support to students with a wide range of needs. Millikin has several strong programs to benefit these students: EDGE 1, EDGE 2, supplemental instruction, and peer tutoring, for example. Students identified as at risk academically during the admission process are invited to participate in the EDGE 1 program. EDGE 1, which is a 3-credit course, elongates the semester for the student and decreases their course-load throughout the semester. EDGE 2, a similar program offered between the fall and spring semesters, is designed for students evaluated as having insufficient hours for academic progress or who have been placed on academic probation. EDGE 2, also connects students to faculty, Student Life and Academic Development staff, and upper class students, which is considered vital to the success of the program; and integrates study skills and academic behaviors that increase the likelihood of a successful college experience.

At the same time Millikin is responsive to the needs of students in some unconventional ways. For example, the Chemistry Department, when it was obvious that a significant number of students were having problems with the first-year course in Fall 2001, pulled those students out and restarted an intensive course specifically for those students. The course was described in a recent article in the "Chronicle of Higher Education" (February).

Despite programs to assist students with academic needs, each year students find themselves on academic probation, which arises when a student's Millikin cumulative grade point average drops below 2.0. After fall semester grades were submitted in 2001, 126 students were placed on academic probation, 125 of those students fall into the sub-set of students used to determine Title III eligibility. Of those placed on probation 23 did not enroll for the spring semester, 12 of those were first-year students. 

A two-part effort to begin contacting students on academic probation began during this winter period, before the start of classes in mid-January. One SLAD staff member contacted most students and began the process of 1) adjusting schedules to reflect the need for prerequisites for failed courses as well as re-enrolling students in failed classes from the fall semester; 2) enrolling students in a weekend jump start program, Strategies for Academic Success. The focal point of this program was to learn enough from each student to prepare an individualized program sufficient enough to identify services that might enhance the possibility of a student getting off probation and gaining greater academic success. Semester follow-up is planned to optimize the weekend program, and 3) strengthening the connection between a student and a staff/faculty member at the University. Reviewing academic performance (past transcripts and spring schedule) as it relates to a student's professional aspirations was a primary focus area. Inquiry as to how problems in major classes (i.e. a pre-med student fails biology, or an aspiring education or business student doesn't have the necessary grade point average to be admitted into the school) create ongoing issues of progress toward one's desired degree
Additionally, during the weekend program students were asked to self-identify strategies for success, factors that impacted their grades this semester and to disclose "When you are struggling, to whom do you turn to for help on campus?" Of the 48 students responding, six identified a specific faculty/staff name. None of those asked indicated their academic advisor. Most named a friend or peer. SLAD will seek out faculty and staff members interested in advising at-risk students. These persons will be in addition to their primary advisors, particularly if someone else has special aptitudes for dealing with students who have a specific need. Some students are linked with Minority Affairs staff, Career Center, coaches or teachers in specific divisions.

Despite these programs, however, the Title III Task Force and Advisory Committee saw a gap in the level of support for students with the greatest need. Students with the greatest need may not recognize that need until they have fallen too far behind, in part because they may not connect with students and faculty who articulate a norm of academic inquiry and persistence. While a stronger overall advising system will help these students, the planning group also saw the need for advisors and other mentors with specific skills, and the early initiation of a strong relationship between advisors and students.

Analysis of Major Fiscal Problems

Millikin Faces Short-term Fiscal Constraints Amidst Signs of Long-term Security
In the past decade, Millikin has made major investments in its physical facilities to strengthen academic programs and to make possible a strategically planned growth to 2,500 students. To do this the University has drawn on its endowment at a rate that over the long term is not sustainable. Millikin has also secured financing for some of its major facilities projects, with the result that the debt of $46 million is only $14 million less than the value of the endowment (circa $60 million). The service on this debt is a significant annual operating cost.

During this period Millikin has made significant academic investments, including initiation of the Millikin Plan of Student Learning, hires for University Teaching and Learning Programs and for Academic Development, and improved faculty and staff compensation.

Despite the increase in tuition income arising from enrollment growth, the investments in the future made at Millikin have resulted in short-term financial limitations, to which the President and Board have responded with policies of fiscal controls and restraints, as well as modest budget reductions for current expenses. These limits of current expenses have made it difficult to increase staffing in student co-curricular support services. 

The long-term fiscal picture for Millikin is extremely positive. The initial success of Millikin's $75 million capital campaign has been led to extension of the goal to $120 million. More than $95 million in commitments have been received for the campaign. Within the next ten years the majority of campaign commitments that should be realized. Cash payments on pledges will be used to reduce the debt and enhance the endowment. Endowment funds will, over the long-term, become improvement tools in recruiting strong students and ensuring the high-quality education for which Millikin has been known. In recent years, the student application pool has strengthened while admit yields have grown.

The strengthening of retention at the University, however, which is the focus of activities in this Title III proposal, represents one of the fastest and most positive means of strengthening the University's financial picture, as increased student retention generates higher net tuition and reduces some of the costs of new student enrollment and support services. 

Process for Analysis of Major Problems

The Title III Comprehensive Development plan and the activity outlined in this proposal flow logically from the intensive analysis carried out by the broad-based Centennial Planning Committee (CPC, see above). The Centennial Planning Committee used extensive data from community meetings, the NCACS self study and other documents to articulate the institutional priorities, goals, and objectives listed below. 

The CPC reviewed existing documents that assessed the character of the university, its performance and needs. Documents examined by the CPC included: the Final Report of the University Planning Committee (1994) outlining the elements of the last major planning effort at Millikin; the Institutional Self-Study Report (1996) prepared for accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools; the Advancing the Vision: Millikin's Second Century (1996) case statement for our ambitious five-year capital campaign to raise $75 million for facilities and endowment, as well as a number of documents published in 1999 summarizing the planning topics and frequently recurring themes emerging from the campus discussions of 1999. 

The Centennial Priorities Committee then reviewed many special-topic studies. For example: follow-up surveys of freshman students after their first week (1997, 1998 and 1999) and their first semester (1998 and 1999); exit surveys of graduating seniors (1999 and 2000); reports on the effectiveness of instruction in writing and oral communication units of selected University Studies courses (1998 and 1999); voluntary attrition data (1996-1998) and retention data (February 2000); a detailed classroom capacity study (February 2000); a draft proposal for a university Diversity Strategy 2001-2006 (February 2000); an "assessment update" from the university Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (May 2000); An Inventory and Evaluation of the Community-based Educational Programs and Activities at Millikin University (by Phillip Carey, consultant and adjunct faculty member in Behavioral Sciences, June 2000); a curricular review, Millikin Program of Student Learning Implementation Summary Report (Summer 2000); a report recommending a number of strategic initiatives in technology (Summer 2000); a draft committee report on improving faculty advising (October 2000); and a draft report from a study group on faculty/staff compensation (December 2000).

Finally, the CPC studied a number of external consultant reports, including several focusing on student success and satisfaction with the university: Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus: Millikin University (prepared for The College Board by Applied Educational Research, Inc., 1995 and 1998); CIRP Institutional Summary: Entering Freshman Survey (1998 and 1999); PEW National Survey of Student Engagement (The College Report, 1999); Student Satisfaction Inventory (Noel-Levitz Centers, Inc., 1996-1999); Student Satisfaction Measurement Survey (Maguire Associates, Inc., Spring 2000); Planning Strategically: Data and Information Needs (Gerald W. McLaughlin, Spring 2000); and Millikin University Environmental Scan Report (GDA Research, May 2000).

Following the work of the CPC and before receipt of the Title III Planning Grant, a Summer Planning Group carried out an in-depth analysis of the advising issues and student support issues at Millikin and studied programs at other institutions of higher education. The work of that planning group is reflected in the work of the Title III Task Force and Advisory Committee. The Task Force and Committee were named, upon receipt of the Planning Grant, to design and produce the Title III Development Grant proposal. At the same time a successor to the Centennial Planning Committee, the Planning and Budget Committee was named to oversee the overall strategic plan for the University. The Planning and Budget Committee and Title III Task Force, using CPC data, as well as more recent student surveys (exit surveys, Noel-Levitz, CIRP, and internal analyses of trends) have been working on parallel timelines, with the Comprehensive Development Plan being created at the same time as the Title III Development Grant was designed. As the institution's overarching planning committee, the Planning and Budget Committee will continue for the life of the plan, while the Task Force and Advisory Committee will complete their activities when the Title III grant is submitted.
 
The Centennial Planning Committee designed the priorities and goals listed below. As noted above, their process involved a broad-based campus effort involving faculty, staff and students. The Title III Task Force of six individuals and Advisory Committee of sixteen members are comprised of individuals from all schools, colleges and divisions, staff, administrators, two students, and major Faculty Council chairpersons. The two groups started their work in August 2001 with a retreat involving 40 staff, faculty and students. It planned and organized campus retreats and other meetings examining issues of student success and advising. During these meetings a broad invitation was made to student leaders, faculty, and staff to contribute their perspectives on student success, advising, and the MPSL. More recently, major faculty council chairpersons have been involved in the deliberations.