Part I: Institutionalizing Practices and Improvements

Reader's Questions: To what extent does the plan clearly and comprehensively describe the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practices and improvements developed under the project, including in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources? 

The activities to be undertaken under this Title III proposal will require an ongoing commitment by the University to ensure that the progress made under this proposal becomes permanent and students benefit from a stronger system to ensure their academic success. In particular, the ongoing costs of the Title III enhancements include: 

* A full-time Assistant Director for Academic Development, who will work with students and faculty to maintain effective responses to the needs of students who are at higher-than-average risk of failure. This cost, $60,000 annually (including benefits) will be supported by income generated by retained students.

* An ongoing commitment to faculty development on advising and meeting the needs of targeted students. Millikin University budgets $450,000 annually for faculty development. As faculty shift the focus of advising and as the benefits of attention to high-need students is recognized, a portion of those funds will support ongoing faculty development efforts.

* An ongoing process of assessment for the Millikin Plan of Student Learning. The major cost in this endeavor is piloting the assessment instruments, which will be accomplished during the course of this grant. After that point the Office of University Teaching and Learning and the Institutional Research Officer will carry out the assessment.

Other enhancements, such as implementation of the Plan of Study, online registration, and campus linkages to support student development will be built into the fabric of existing programs and require no ongoing staffing after the Title III project.
The most challenging component in institutionalization of a stronger advising system is the agreement of the faculty to a model for evaluation, recognition and, in cases of extremely heavy advising responsibilities, redefinition of, and, as needed, compensation for the advising function. The faculty has been reluctant to formalize the advising process without institutional investment in resources, as well as a clear process for recognizing advising in promotion and tenure decisions. The issue of the advising workload, and its recognition as a factor in performance evaluation, tenure and promotions, may require investment by the University. The extent of that investment, however, is not known at this point. If an average advising caseload of 20 students per faculty member were a norm, the University has more than enough faculty to meet that norm. However, specific schools or departments (Education, Nursing, Business, Music) see a particularly important role for advising within the context of their own schools and departments, which may require an investment in or reallocation of resources to address advising overloads. A major role for the Faculty Task Force on Advising will be to work with governance councils to formalize the advising process, and to establish appropriate management strategies. The grant activities are designed to spread best advising practices across the campus.

Millikin anticipates two fiscal factors that will make it possible to institutionalize Title III improvements and make additional investments as needed:

* The first factor is the availability of resources for faculty development, assessment and compensation that will become available as capital campaign funds are received or income is realized.

* The second factor, directly related to this proposal, is the cumulative economic benefit of improved retention at the University. Each student at Millikin accounts for about $10,000 per year in net tuition revenue. The five-year objective for this proposal is to increase the freshman-sophomore retention rate from 79% to 83%. This will result in continued enrollment of about 25 students per year, or $250,000 in net tuition revenue. The University's income from retained students is proportionately higher than it is for new students in that financial aid remains constant for students while tuition increases.
Improved retention has a secondary financial benefit as well as a staffing implication. As additional students are retained and move into upper-division courses, the enrollment of those courses increase with little additional staffing required, at the same time the demands for first-year course staffing decreases as the number of first-year students needed to achieve enrollment goals declines as a percentage of the total student body.
The University administration is committed to the program described in this proposal and the use of income from retention gains to sustain Title III activities.