AN ASSESSMENT OF WILBERFORCE UNIVERSITY’S PARTICIPATION IN

THE TITLE III-STRENGTHENING DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS

PROGRAM, 1974-79

Helen Jones

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1980

Approved

Advisor

e Representative ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to provide answers to the following

questions: (1) Did Wilberforce University do what they committed them­

selves to doing by the several Title III grants received?; (2) Did

Wilberforce University experience development by the several Title III

development criteria over the time of Title III participation and what

was the development experience relative to other Title III participat­

ing institutions, and to other institutions, regionally and nationally?;

and (3) What do the faculty and key administrative personnel at Wilber­

force believe about the success and importance of Title III participa­

tion at Wilberforce as reported by their responses on a questionnaire?

In order to carry out the purpose of this study, data were col­

lected from government and other documents and a questionnaire. The data

from government and other documents were extracted and categorized

according to Title III development criteria. Questionnaire data were

summarized.

The results indicated: (1) Wilberforce University has done sub­

stantially what they committed themselves to doing by several of the Ti­

tle III grants received; (2) Wilberforce University did experience development by most of the Title III development criteria (enrollment, faculty salaries, students from low-income families, educational and general expenditures, educational and general expenditures per student, and number of library volumes), also, significant development experienced at Wilberforce relative to other colleges and universities were in the areas of enrollment, faculty salaries, educational and general expendi- Ill

tures and educational and general expenditures per student; (3) Faculty

and key administrative personnel at Wilberforce believe that most of

the Title III programs are important, that the First-Year Coordination,

Basic Math, Freshman Composition, Audio-Visual Services, Learning

Resources Center Development, Freshman Composition Laboratory, and

Faculty Tutorial programs are successful. In addition, they believe

First-Year Coordination, Basic Math, Audio-Visual Services, and Learn­

ing Resources Center programs could be even more successful if addi­

tional monies were available to support them.

The study concludes with providing a set of recommendations for

implementation of the Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions

Program. IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this doctoral dissertation would have been

impossible without the help, cooperation, and empathy of many individuals

I wish to acknowledge my appreciation to:

Administrators at Wilberforce University for their willingness to

permit this research project. Special appreciation is extended to

Minerva Figgs, Title III Coordinator and her staff for their unrelent­

ing support.

God for seeing me through and never leaving me alone.

My advisor, Dr. William York, Professor of Educational Admini­

stration and Supervision, for his instruction, patience, and sensi­

tivity; Dr. Malcolm Campbell, Professor of Educational Foundations and

Inquiry, for his guidance and for sharing his personal papers on Title III with me; and the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Robert

Reed, Chairman of Educational Foundations and Inquiry, Dr. Ron Jones,

Chairman of Educational Administration and Supervision, and Dr. Gerald

Saddlemire, Chairman of College Student Personnel, for their guidance and encouragement.

My mother, Edith Bennett, Victoria Edwards, Darlene Thurston, and many other relatives and friends for constantly reminding me that they cared.

Dr. Barbara Ricks, Academic Dean at Florida Memorial College, for her support and faith in me; and Dr. Winfred Stone, Assistant Dean of V

the Graduate College, Bowling Green State University, for his profes­ sional assistance.

My typist, Deborah Magrum, for her understanding and patience. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ...... 1

Nature of the Problem...... 1

Basic Title III Programs...... 5

Curriculum Improvement Program ...... 5

Faculty Development Program ...... 7

Administrative Improvements Program ...... 8

Cooperative Education ...... 9

University Development ...... 10

Purpose of the Study...... 14

Limitations of the Study...... 14

Definitions ...... 15

Organization of the Remainder of the Study...... 16

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 17

Historical Background of the Federal Role in Higher Education...... 17

Evolution of Title III Legislation ...... 22

Administration of the Developing Institutions Program . . 27

Title III Evaluations Studies...... 51

Financing of Black Colleges ...... 35

Summary...... 40

CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURE...... 42

Methods of the Study...... 42 VIT

Population...... 43

Procedures for the Collection of Data...... 43

Tabulation of Questionnaire Data ...... 46

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA...... 47

Title III Program Commitments and Evaluation Measures . . 47

First-Year Program Coordination ...... 48

Basic Mathematics Program Improvement ...... 49

Freshman Composition Program Improvement and Freshman Laboratory ...... 50

Improve and Expand Mass Media Communications Pro­ gram ...... 51

Expansion of Management Program ...... 51

Improve Teacher Education ...... 52

Audio-Visual Services Development ...... 52

Learning Resources Center Development ...... 53

Joint Programs with Central State University .... 53

Management Information System and Information Ser­ vices ...... 54

Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs ... 55

Expand Career Planning ...... 55

Expand Cooperative Education ...... 56

Dual Degree Engineering Program ...... 57

AID Coordination...... 57

Planning Research and Evaluation ...... 58

Basic Science Enhancement Program ...... 58

Competency-Based Instruction DevelopmentP rogram . . 59 viii

Interdisciplinary Studies Program ...... 60

Allied Health Program ...... 60

Pre-Law Program ...... 61

Faculty Tutorial Program ...... 61

Fund-Raising Training ...... 62

Title III Development Criteria...... 62

Enrollment...... 63

Faculty with Doctorates ...... 66

Faculty Salaries ...... 68

Students from Low-Income Families ...... 70

Total Educational and General Expenditures (E & G) . 72

Educational and General Expenditures Per Full- Time Student...... 74

Library Volumes...... 74

Questionnaire Response ...... 77

Importance of Title III Programs ...... 78

Effectiveness of Title III Programs ...... 85

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 104

Summary of Findings...... 104

First-Year Program Coordination ...... 105

Basic Math Program Improvement...... 105

Freshman Composition Program Improvement and Freshman Laboratory ...... 105

Improve and Expand Mass Media Communications Pro­ gram ...... 105

Expansion of Management Program 106 Improve Teacher Education ...... 106

Audio-Visual Services Development ...... 106

Learning Resources Center Development ...... 106

Joint Programs with Central State University .... 106

Management Information System and Information Services...... 107

Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs . . . 107

Expand Career Planning ...... 107

Expand Cooperative Education ...... 107

Dual Degree Engineering Program...... 107

AID Coordination ...... 108

Planning, -Research, and Evaluation ...... 108

Basic Science Enhancement Program ...... 108

Competency-Based Instruction Development Program . . 108

Interdisciplinary Studies Program ...... 109

Allied Health Program ...... 109

Faculty Tutorial Program ...... 109

Pre-Law Program ...... 109

Enrollment...... HO

Faculty with Doctorates...... Hl

Faculty Salaries ...... Hl

Students from Low-Income Families ...... 113

Total Educational and General Expenditures (E & G) . 113

Educational and General Expenditures Per Full- Time Student...... H4

Library Volumes...... H-4 X

Conclusions...... 116

Recommendations ...... 119

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 121

APPENDIX A Higher Education Act of 1965, Title Ill- Strengthening Developing Institutions Legislation ...... 128

APPENDIX B Other Title III Participating Institutions . . . 134

APPENDIX C Cover Letter and Questionnaire Sent to Faculty and Key Administrative Personnel ...... 136

APPENDIX D Wilberforce University Financial Documents . . . 148

APPENDIX E Funding Level of Title III Programs at Wilberforce University . . -...... 151 XI

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Full-Time Enrollment (Fall Head Counts, 1973 and 1976) ...... 64

2 Per Cent of Full-Time Faculty with Doctorates .... 67

3 Average Faculty Salaries ...... 69

4 Per Cent of Students from Low-Income Families .... 71

5 Total Educational and General (E & G) Expenditures . 73

6 E & G Expenditures Per Full-Time Student ...... 75

7 Number of Volumes in the Library...... 76

8 Questionnaire Response Rate ...... 78

9 Opinions About the Importance of Title III Programs (Per Cent Responding) ...... 79

10 Relationship Between Involvement in Program and Opinion that Program is Very Important...... 86

11 Perceptions of Effectiveness of Title III Programs (Per Cent Responding)...... 88

12 Relationship Between Involvement in Program and Feeling that Program is Effective (Excluding those who had No Opinion) Per Cent Responding...... 93

13 Opinions Expressed by Respondents About Additional Monies Needed For Title III Programs To Be More Effective...... 95

14 Important Needs of the Institution Not Funded by Title III...... 97

15 Ways Title III Affected Decision-Making Process ... 99

16 Has Title III Research and Evaluation Procedures and Instruments Had Impact on Non-Title III Programs? . . 98

17 Kind of Contact with Each Program...... 101 Xll

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Federal Funds to Institutions of Higher Education (1930-1970) ...... 21

1.2 Enrollment Trends in Higher Education (1930-1980) . 65 CHAPTER I

Introduction to the Study

Nature of the Problem

In 1965, the developing institutions federal program was begun

to assist in raising the academic quality of colleges which have the

desire and potential to make a substantial contribution to the higher

education resources of the nation. For financial and other reasons

these colleges were considered to be struggling for survival and iso­ lated from the main currents of academic life."*' The Title Ill-

Strengthening Developing Institutions legislation enabled the Com­

missioner to establish a national teaching fellows program and to

encourage and to assist in the establishment of cooperative arrange­

ments under which developing colleges could draw on the talent and

experience of the nation’s finest colleges and universities. Also,

they could draw on the educational resources of business and industry 2 in their effort to improve their academic quality. Many of these

struggling institutions were black colleges and universities.

In view of the unfavorable conditions and the many problems faced

by black colleges and universities, McGrath recommended that the 3 federal government play a major role in strengthening most black colleges.

^Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions), §301 (a), 79 Stat. 1229 (1965), 20 U.S.C. §1051 (a) 1978.

2Ibid.

3 . Earl J. McGrath, The Predominantly Negro Colleges and Universities in Transition (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965), p. 168.

. 1 2

Also, the Rivlin Report made a case for the Southern traditionally black

colleges to become candidates for Title III funding. The report noted

that "two-thirds of these colleges enrolled fewer than 1,000 students,

and the small proportion of their income derived from tuition and fees,

endowment earnings, and alumni gifts place them in financial straits 4 and, hence, candidacy for Title III funding." Private black colleges,

unlike the public institutions depended heavily on contributions and

gifts to meet their expenses. In addition, black educators and other

supporters of black colleges called upon the federal government for sup­

port. It was their opinion that black institutions of higher education

represent a national resource, essential for the continued diversity of higher education, for the continued access to higher education for black Americans, and for realization of the promise of America.

Wilberforce University, founded in Ohio in 1856 and the oldest black university in America came under the embrace of the developing institutions program in 1966. Wilberforce University is a small, pri­ vate institution whose mission is directed toward the development of the whole person through liberal education. Many of the students are first­ generation college students who come to the campus with inadequate preparation and motivation. The origin of Wilberforce University can

Alice M. Rivlin, Towards a Long-Range Plan for Federal Financial Support for Higher Education. A Preliminary Report to the President- Interagency Task Force on Admin, of Academic Science Research Program (Texas: Lyndon B. Johnson Library, 1965), p. 15. (Mimeographed). ^"The Black College and the New Black Awareness," Daedalus (Summer 1971), pp. 573-602. 3

be traced to the famous Ohio Underground Railroad. Wilberforce’s first

students, slaves and freed blacks, were at the end of that railway.

The Cincinnati Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church founded

the institution and named it to honor the great 18th century abolition­

ist, William Wilberforce. The first decades of the institution were

'marked by disaster, lack of money and a continual search for benefac­

tors. As the enrollment dwindled and financial support declined, the

original Wilberforce closed in 1862. Wilberforce was reopened in

the spring of 1863 with a dozen students and Bishop Daniel A. Payne

as President. Bishop Payne of the African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.)

Church negotiated to purchase the university's facilities with the

cooperation of John G. Mitchell, Principal of the Eastern District

Public School of Cincinnati, and James A. Shorter, Pastor of the A.M.E.

Church in Zanesville, Ohio. As the institution began to increase its

enrollment and retire the debts, arsonists fired the school's main

building, a large frame structure which had served as a combination lecture and classroom facility, dormitory, and dining hall.? The task

of rebuilding began immediately. Wilberforce began to receive support

from individuals, philanthropic.societies, the U.S. Congress, and

Chief Justice Solomon P. Chase, a member of the Board of Trustees.

Also, the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological Edu-

^Wilberforce University, Bulletin 1979-1981 (Ohio, 1979), p. 13.

7Ibid. 4

cation, the American Unitarian Association, and the Freedmen’s Bureau g were among the financial supporters of Wilberforce.

In 1887, the State of Ohio established a combined normal and

industrial department at Wilberforce University. The department was in

the control of the public; Wilberforce provided buildings and teacher­

training resources. In 1947, the effort to administer a single univer­

sity under two governing boards, one church and one state, gave way to 9 pressures for separate institutions, Wilberforce and Central State.

Wilberforce lost students, faculty, and supportive resources in the

resulting split. But, with the support of the A.M.E. Church, alumni,

and a dedicated core of faculty and administrators, it remained open.

The institution began to grow with a steady confidence in the 1960s and developed into a new, multi-million dollar campus.^

Currently, under the leadership of Dr. Charles Taylor who became

President in 1976, Wilberforce University remains committed to flexi­

ble and inclusive admissions policies in order to assure that young

people who have not been adequately prepared at the secondary level are provided opportunities for higher education.H

g Wilberforce University, p. 13. 9 David A. Gerber, "Segregation, Separatism and Sectarianism: Ohio Blacks and Wilberforce University’s Effort to Obtain Federal Funds 1891," Journal of Negro Education, 45 (Winter, 1976), pp. 4-7. ^Wilberforce University, p. 9.

11 Ibid. 5

Wilberforce University was in the first group of institutions par­

ticipating in Title III beginning with the Basic Institutional Develop­

ment Program (BIDP) from 1966 to 1974, and, in turn, the Advanced Insti­

tutional Development Program (AIDP) initiated by the government in 1973.

Wilberforce University’s participation in the Basic program 12 included the following programs :

Basic Title III Programs

(1) Curriculum Improvement Program

(a) Mass Media Communications Program

The objective of this program was to add one additional

professor in the Humanities Division in the area of mass

media communications for the purpose of developing a pro­

gram which would make it possible for Wilberforce students

to major in mass media communications and secure employ­

ment in this field. A director for the program was hired

and the new major developed and added to the curriculum.

(b) National Teaching Fellows in English

The objective of this program was to improve the faculty/

student ratio in traditionally overcrowded courses inbasic

communications. A new competency-based, module program in

basic composition was made possible by the presence of

National Teaching Fellows in communications. Two fellows

12Basic Title III Program Documents Wilberforce University (1966­ 1974). Wilberforce, Ohio. 6

were involved with the remedial program in reading and

composition, chiefly in the composition part of the pro­

gram. This program ended in August, 1974. The Teaching

Fellows Program was not funded by the Advanced Institu­

tional Development Program which was implemented in 1974.

(c) Audio-Visual Service Program

The objective of the program was to provide Wilberforce

faculty with adequate services for the production and

utilization of audio-visual materials and equipment.

Title III funds made it possible to hire a fully quali­

fied director of Audio-Visual Services. A-V equipment

was available for faculty use in many classes.

(d) Student Field Trips Program

The objective of this program was to make it possible

for groups of students to expand their educational

experience by travel to nearby off-campus learning situ­

ations. While funds were not adequate for all trips

desired, the program objective was largely met. Students

and their professors visited such places as state prisons,

court trial, the State Legislature, the Supreme Court,

the County Jail, medical school, waste treatment facility,

Indian burial mounds, and museum.

(e) Consortial Programs

The objective of this program was to enable the University

to continue to participate in a variety of consortium 7

activities with other colleges and universities. Title III

funds supported the University’s participation in several

different consortial programs—the Dayton-Miami Valley Con­

sortium, Strategies for Change and Knowledge Utilization,

the Consortium for Higher Education Religion Studies, the

African Lecture Series coordinated by the Phelps-Stokes

Fund, and the Fullbright-Hays Lectures sponsored by the

U.S. Department of State. Wilberforce worked closely with

Antioch College through the Wilmington-Antioch-Wilberforce

Consortium. Through Antioch, the institution received

assistance in educational theory, practice, and evaluation.

Wilmington worked cooperatively with Wilberforce on an

Urban Studies Program and with Central State. Wilberforce

was also involved in a Title III Program in physics and

data processing which eventually was dropped because of

lack of funds.

(2) Faculty Development Program

(a) Graduate Study Awards

The objective of this small program was to make it possi­

ble for a few Wilberforce faculty members to continue

their educational development at neighboring institutions.

Twelve grants were awarded with an average grant being

$325. These small supplements helped to make it possible

for seven faculty members to continue their part-time 8

programs for -doctoral degrees. Others were for post­

doctoral study.

(b) Faculty Workshops

The objective of this program was to make possible a

few faculty workshops on curriculum related matters as

the need arose. Workshops were conducted primarily on

reading.

(3) Administrative Improvements Program

(a) Student Accounts Bookkeeping

The main objective of this program was to obtain more

accurate and timely posting of student accounts.

Title III funding has been used to lease an NCR 42

bookkeeping machine. Its utilization has resulted in

an effective and efficient system of receipts, their

posting in proper categories, and the production of

proper receipt vouchers.

(b) Purchasing

Title III funds were used to continue an arrangement

with Antioch College for Purchasing services with the

objective of assisting the University in making appro­

priate and cost-saving purchases. The objective was

largely met, providing the University with an improved

purchasing operation for nearly two years. It also

facilitated the orderly, careful design and implementa­

tion of the University’s own office of administrative 9

services, which went into full operation July, 1974.

With implementation of the University's own administra­

tive services office, this arrangement was discontinued.

(c) Student Records Microfilming

The process of microfilming students' records in the

Office of the Registrar began in 1972 with equipment

leased with Title III funds. The objective of the pro­

gram was to have all past and current student records

recorded on film and safely stored. All back records

were put on film.

(4) Cooperative Education

(a) Career Planning and Placement

The objective of this program was the development of a

fully functioning office of career planning and place­

ment for seniors and alumni. Progress has begun with

various workshops on how to interview and write a resume.

However, the loss of the key administrator resulted in

delay in the progress toward full implementation of the

office.

(b) Regional Program

Title III funds were utilized to support the University's

unique cooperative education program begun in 1965 and

made compulsory for all Wilberforce students in 1967.

The main objective of the cooperative education program

was to provide all Wilberforce students with a variety of 10

educationally relevant job experiences in alternation

with study terms during their years at the University.

Students were placed at job sites in Dayton, Cleveland,

and Philadelphia.

(5) University Development

The objective of this Title III program has been to continu­

ally improve the University’s ability to raise both capital

and program funds for the onstruction of its new campus and

the development of its academic and service operations. The

long-range goal is the construction of a complete new campus

and a well-funded college program. Title III funds were also

used to support Wilberforce participation in the Phelps-Stokes

Development Program Consortium. The major purpose of the con­

sortium was to provide a forum in which development personnel

of the participating forty-four developing colleges could come

together to seek solutions to common problems, utilizing the

services of outstanding minds in the university development

field who would be otherwise inaccessible to the schools'

pocketbooks. Over the years, the Phelps-Stokes program has

resulted in trained development personnel, both administra­

tive and secretarial, through a series of one or two-day

seminar sessions with experts doing critical analysis of the

work being done at each institution. T1

The objective of BIDP was to help narrow the gap between small,

weak colleges and stronger institutions through cooperative arrange­

ments, a national teaching fellows program, and a Professor Emeriti 13 program. Developing institutions selected for AIDP were considered

to be at a stage of development where they could rapidly move into the

mainstream of education. High priority was given to servicing the

educational needs of low-income students by (a) providing them with

the background required to obtain employment with upward mobility;

(b) preparing them for professions in which they have been traditionally 14 underrepresented; or (c) qualifying them for graduate training.

Although Wilberforce and other developing institutions are trying

to move into the mainstream of American higher education, fundamental

changes have been predicted for many colleges and universities over

the next twenty years. If prognosticians prove to be correct, insti­

tutions of higher education in the United States will be confronted ' 15 with an enrollment decline in the range of five to fifteen per cent.

Some reasons for the anticipated decline are: a greatly slowed birth­ rate; a tightening professional job market combined with sharply increased costs for higher education; a decline in the middle-class child’s interest in pursuing a B.A. as an entree to the labor market;

13FR Doc. 40, §169.21 (1975), p. 23860.

14Ibid., §169.31, p. 23862.

^Malcolm G. Scully, "Carnegie Panel Says Enrollment Declines will Create a ’New Academic Revolution’," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 (January, 1980), p. 11. 12

and the absence of selective service and other national pressures that

historically have sent enrollments skyrocketing (although this may

soon change). Further, the overbuilding of plant and staff in the

"boom 1960s" will compound problems associated with enrollment decline.

The problems are expected to be serious enough to threaten survival of

some colleges and universities, and the quality and integrity of

others will be threatened. In other words, "there are going to be

many futures for higher education, institution by institution and not

just• one cf uture. ..17

Whether or not developing institutions will face even greater

financial and other-problems in the future-is^academic. At the present

time, Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions Program has

become the largest direct institutional-aid program for colleges and

universities in the federal budget. Academic year 1979-80 marks the

fourteenth year of the program. Nearly $1 billion has been granted 18 to more than 800 institutions during the fourteen years. In fiscal

year 1979, the total higher education budget was approximately

$80 billion and of that amount $120,000,000 were designated for develop-

l^Ira Jay Winn, "Turning the Screw: Higher Education in the 1980s and 1990s," Phi Delta Kappan, 61 (June, 1980), p. 686. ^Malcolm G. Scully, p. 11

18 U.S. Congress. House, Committee on Education and Labor. Education Amendments of 1980. Hearing, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., October 17, 1979 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979), p. 12. 13

19 ing Institutions. Between 1966 and 1974, Wilberforce received about

$1,653,511 in Title III funds via the Basic Institutional Development 20 Program. As of June 30, 1977, Wilberforce had received $1,523,300 21 via the Advanced Institutional Development Program. Consequently,

operation of the Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions Pro­

gram is of great concern to educators, tax payers, and politicians.

A review of the literature revealed very little in terms of eval­

uation of the Title III program. Yet, the Title III program has

become highly controversial with critics voicing concern about insuffi­

cient guidance to institutions in the proper use of and accountability

for Title III funds by the U.S. Office of Education. The Office of

Education is further criticized for not having specified what the 22 accomplishments of Title III are. The scale of the program, the

legislatively intended impact on selected institutions, the contro­

versy about the program and the presently limited research about

Title III programs and institutions all suggest the appropriateness

of this study.

19 "Funds for Higher Education in Education Department Budget," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 (February, 1980), pp. 14-15. 20 President's Annual Report to the Board of Trustees 1974. Wilberforce University (Ohio, 1974), p. 4. 21 President's Annual Report to the Board of Trustees 1976-77. Wilberforce University (Ohio, 1977), p. 16. 22 U.S. Comptroller General. Report to the Congress : The Federal Program to Strengthen Developing Institutions of Higher Education Lacks Direction (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1979), pp. 5-8. 14

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to provide answers to the following

questions:

1. Did Wilberforce University do what they committed them­

selves to doing by the several Title III grants received?

2. Did Wilberforce University experience development by the

several development criteria of Title III (enrollment,

faculty with doctorates, faculty salaries, low-income

students, educational and general expenditures, educational

and general expenditures per student, and number of volumes

in the library) over the time of Title III participation

and what was the development experience relative to other

Title III participating/developing institutions, and to

other institutions, regionally and nationally?

3. What do the faculty and key administrative personnel at

Wilberforce believe about the success and importance of

Title III participation at Wilberforce as reported by

their responses on a questionnaire?

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited to Wilberforce University, an historical and predominantly black private institution in Ohio. This study is limited to the years 1974-1979 during which time Wilberforce partici­ pated in the Title III Advanced Institutional Development Program (AIDP)

In assessing developments at Wilberforce during Title III parti­ cipation, it is not possible to isolate completely a "cause and effect" 15

relationship because other sources of funds, as well as forces exter­

nal to Wilberforce and Title III impact the institution.

Definitions

Developing Institution: a college or university receiving

Title III funds. Title III legislation defines developing institution

as "an institution of higher education in any state which ... is for

financial or other reasons, struggling for survival and isolated from 23 the main currents of academic life."

Educational and general expenditures: current expenditures for

the general administration, instruction and research functions of a

college or university. It excludes auxiliary enterprises and inde­

pendent operations, capital outlay and debt service expenditures.

Key administrator: an administrator who has relations to Title III

programs.

Advanced Institutional Development Program (AIDP): the purpose

of this program is to assist selected developing institutions adjudged

to have the potential for accelerated institutional development. The

goal is to expedite the institution’s progress towards achieving both

operational and fiscal stability and participation in the mainstream 24 of American higher education.

^Higher Education Act of 1965, p. 1229.

24 FR Doc. 40, p. 23862. 16

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter II is a review of the literature. Chapter III is devoted

to setting forth the methods of the study. Chapter IV presents a detailed analysis of the data derived from the questionnaire and vari­ ous documents. Chapter V contains summary and conclusions of the study and recommendations regarding the Title III program. CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

Historical Background of the Federal Role in Higher Education

Prior to World War II, the federal government provided marginal

support to higher education. However, federal education policy began

in 1785 with the Northwest Ordinance. This Ordinance provided for the

reservation of designated public lands for the endowment of schools and

seminaries of learning. Ohio University at Athens (1802) and Miami

University at Oxford, Ohio (1809) were the first state universities

west of the Appalachians and the beneficiaries of certain public lands.

A second major step toward a signficant federal role was the enactment

of the Morrill Act of 1862, under which each state was given a grant of

land to create an endowment for the support of a college that, in addi­

tion to classical education and military science programs, would pro- 2 vide teaching in agricultural and mechanical arts. In 1890, Congress

passed the Second Morrill Act. The Morrill Acts were government

responses to the rapid industrial and agricultural development occurring 3 . . in America during the mid-nineteenth century. Negro land-grant insti­

tutions were established during this time. The federal government

Sí. M. Chambers, Financing Higher Education (New York: The Cen­ ter for Applied Research in Education, In., 1963), p. 50. 2 Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, The Federal Role in Postsecondary Education-Unfinished Business 1975-1980 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), p. 7. 3 T. H. Bell, The Federal Role in Education (Washington, D.C.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 095 798, 1974), p. 1.

17 18

required that states either admit Negroes to their land-grant colleges

or provide "separate but equal" colleges for them. Every state with a

significant Negro population chose the latter alternative, converting a normal school into an "A & I" or "A & T" college.4

A chain of supplementary acts followed the Morrill Act of 1862

extending on into the twentieth century. Notable were the Hatch Act

of 1887, providing flat-rate appropriations of money to the states for

agricultural experiment stations. Also, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914

provided for the beginnings of the cooperative federal-state-local agricultural extension service.*3 *

During World War II the federal government became extensively

involved in providing funds for higher education. Research funds flowed to universities in unprecedented amounts.3 In 1944, the famed

G.I. Bill was enacted to provide subsistence to men and women honorably

discharged from the armed forces. The cost of books and tuition were paid by the federal government for veterans to attend the school, college, or university of their choice.? American institutions of higher education were suddenly flooded with students who were, on the average, older, more experienced, and from a wider cross-section of society than had previously been the case. Bell feels that this

4Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968), p. 422. 3Chambers, Financing Higher Education, p. 52.

■ ^Carnegie Council on Policy Studies, p. 7.

^Bell, The Federal Role in Education, p. 2. 19

increase in enrollment necessitated not only the building of additional

classrooms and general expansion but also the development of a more g varied curriculum, and new and-varied types of housing. Theaddition

of new buildings and new instructional technology was funded by federal

monies.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s federal policy on education had

been expanded to include basic and applied research in the sciences,

teaching, and in medicine. Also, a federal program of scholarship and

fellowships had been added. In 1944, Congress passed the Public Health

Service Act, the Research and Marketing Act, the- Atomic Energy-Act, and

the National Mental Health Act. These bills were approved to meet the

critical shortage of manpower in~various technical fields as well as to 9 conduct research in agricultural economics. In 1958, loans and fellow­

ships for undergraduate and graduate students were provided by the National Defense Education Act of 1958.^

A historic bill enacted during the 1960s was the Higher Education

Act of 1965. This legislation provided financial aid to higher educa­

tion under seven categories known as titles. Title I provided funds as

stated to set up programs to help meet rural, urban, or suburban com­ munity needs, with special emphasis on solving problems in urban and suburban areas. Title II provided grants to colleges and universities

Q Bell, The Federal Role in Education, p. 2 9 Chambers, Financing Higher Education, p. 54 10Ibid 20

for library materials. Title III provided direct aid to colleges and

universities which needed to be developed and strengthened. Title IV

provided federal scholarships for undergraduate students and federally

subsidized student loans. Title V provided funds for establishment of

the National Teacher Corps and funds for fellowships for graduate study

to elementary and secondary school teachers. Title VI provided grants

for teaching equipment and for minor remodeling of undergraduate facili­

ties. And Title VII provided for construction, reconstruction, and 11 renovation of academic facilities.

In recent years, a large proportion of federal funding for higher

education has been for student aid. Veterans' educational benefits

have increased along with increases in social security benefits. Also,

interest on insured loans and defaults on insured loans have increased 12 with increases in the Basic Education Opportunity Grants (BEOG) program.

In general, federal policy toward higher education has shifted over

the years. Federal involvement has been centered around land grants,

research funds, veteran benefits, and student aid. As evidenced in

Figure 1.1, federal funds going to institutions of higher education have been on the increase. In 1930, about $20,658 million of federal funds went to higher education; in 1940, $38,860 million; in 1950, $524,319 mil­ lion; in 1960, $1,036,990 billion; and in 1970, $2,682,384 billion flowed

■^Higher Education Act of 1965, §101 (a), 79 Stat. 1219 (1965), 20 U.S.C. §1001 (a) 1978.

12 Carnegie Council on Policy Studies, p. 11 21 S N O I L L I M

N I

FIGURE 1.1. Federal Funds to Institutions of Higher Education 22

to institutions of higher education-; 13 These gross payments to higher

education by the federal government have increased federal influence

on colleges and universities.

Evolution of Title III Legislation

Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorized making

grants to strengthen "developing" institutions.

The ideas behind Title III legislation rest mainly on the premises

that less well-known or distinguished institutions can make a signifi­

cant contribution to higher education if given assistance, and that

cooperation among colleges can stimulate institutional development.

Another idea behind the legislation is the assumption that many of the

small institutions possess great potential, that the need is for finan­ cial and technical assistance, and that both of these conditions are 14 related to isolation from the mainstream of American higher education.

On January 12, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson proposed legisla­ tion to authorize making grants to strengthen "developing" institutions.

He stated the following regarding assistance for smaller colleges:

Many of our smaller colleges are battling for survival. About 10 percent lack proper accreditation, and others face constantly the threat of losing accreditation. Many are iso­ lated from the main currents of academic life. Universities should be encouraged to enter into cooper­ ative relationships to help less developed colleges, includ­ ing such assistance as:

13 Allan 0. Pfnister, Planning for Higher Education (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., 1976), pp. 277-279.

14Henry E. Cobb, Report on an Examination of the Developing Insti­ tutions Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1977), p. 15. 23

A program of faculty exchange. Special programs to enable faculty members of small colleges to renew and extend knowledge of their fields. A national fellowship program to encourage highly qualified young graduate stu­ dents and instructors in large universities to augment the teaching resources of many colleges.. The develop­ ment of joining programs to make efficient use of avail­ able facilities and faculty. In union there is strength. This is the basic premise of my recommendation.

The proposed Title III legislation was introduced to the House

and hearings were held by the Special Sub-committee on Education, chaired

by Congresswoman Edith Green of the House Committee on Education and

Labor. In Congressional testimony in- support of the legislation,

Anthony J. Celebreeze, Secretary of the Department of Health, Educa­

tion, and Welfare described the plight of these struggling or "develop—

ing" institutions. He stated:

Almost 10 percent of the colleges which grant higher degrees are still unaccredited by appropriate regional and professional associations. As recently as the 1961-62 aca­ demic year, one-fourth of the faculty members in our public liberal arts undergraduate colleges were paid $6,000 or less, and one-fourth of the faculty members in our private liberal arts undergraduate colleges were paid $5,870 or less.16

Francis Keppel, Commissioner of Education, reiterated Celebreeze’s assertion of "ten percent unaccredited." He further stated:

Lyndon B. Johnson, "Toward Full Educational Opportunity." Speech to the 89th Congress (Texas: Lyndon B. Johnson Library, 1965), p. 15. (Mimeographed). l^U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Education and Labor. Higher Education Act of 1965. Hearing 89th Congress, 1 sess., October (Wash­ ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 38. 24

. . . the institutions are still functioning and trying their best to give their students a reasonably good edu­ cation; far too often, however, they are not really suc­ ceeding, and that is the tragedy to which the legislation is addressed.17

However, documentation submitted to testimony at the request of

Congresswoman Green revealed the percentage of unaccredited institutions was twice as great as Celebreeze, Keppel, and President Johnson had stated.

Broadus Butler, assistant to the Commissioner, Office of Education, testified on behalf of a cooperative arrangement between small colleges and major universities. His principal contention was that:

The smaller colleges need the direct professional and technical resourcefulness and- personnel involvement which can be supplied by the major universities and the major research universities need the humanizing influence of direct acquaintance knowledge of the small college and its students—particularly do they need the sensitivity which they are now gaining about the methodology by which small colleges have so successfully prepared and converted so many economically deprived youth into confident and capa­ ble young men and women . . . The bill should bring ’a measure of relief' in the following areas: 1. Inability to compete for highly qualified per­ sonnel. 2. Excessive teaching loads which militate against research and ancillary scholarly activity for the con­ tinued personal development of faculty members. 3. Disparity in grant allocations by both private and Government granting agencies as between a few large institutions and the many small colleges. 4. Inability of the small college to maintain both quality and continuity even in areas where they have strengths because of high personnel mobility and/or loss of contact by faculty with advances in their fields. 5. Poor instructional salaries which depress faculty motivation.

17 U.S. Congress, House, p. 78. 25

6. Lack of development offices and services to bring information and guidance to the administration of the colleges.18

Further testimonies were heard from Herman R. Branson, professor

and head of the Department of Physics at Howard University; Alfred T.

Hill, Executive Secretary of the Council for the Advancement of Small

Colleges; Homer D. Babbidge, representing the American Council on Edu­

cation and the Association of American Colleges; George W. Beadle,

President, University of Chicago; and others.

Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon), chairman of the sub-committee,

introduced the Title III bill to the Senate. The Senate hearings on

the bill included many of the same witnesses who appeared before the

House. The Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee reported the

final bill which did not differ substantially from the House version.

Finally, Title III legislation was enacted and included most of the

ideas discussed above. As enacted, Title III of the Higher Education

Act of 1965, contained the following provisions: A copy of the Title III legislation is in Appendix A.

Sec. 302 (a) (1) For the purposes of this title, the term ’developing institution’ means an institution of higher education in any State which-- (A) is legally authorized to provide, and pro­ vides within the state, an educational program for which it awards a bachelor’s degree, or is a junior or community college; (B) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Commissioner to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation;

18U.S. Congress, House, pp. 180-184. 26

(C) except as is provided in paragraph (2), has met the requirement of clauses (A) and (B) dur­ ing the five academic years preceding the academic year for which it seeks assistance, under this title; and (D) meets such other requirements as the Com­ missioner shall prescribe by regulation, which requirements shall include at least a determina­ tion that the institution-- (i) is making a reasonable effort to improve the quality of its teaching and administrative staffs and of its student services; and (ii) is, for financial or other rea­ sons, struggling for survival and isolated from the main currents of academic life. USES OF FUNDS: COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS, NATIONAL TEACHING FELLOWSHIP, AND-PROFESSORS EMERITUS Sec. 304 (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants and awards, in accordance with the provisions of this title, for the purpose of strengthening developing institu­ tions. Such grants and awards shall be used solely for the purposes set forth in subsection (b). (b) Funds appropriated pursuant to section 301 (b) shall be available for-- (1) grants to institutions of higher education to pay part of the cost of planning, developing, and carrying out cooperative arrangements between developing institutions and other institutions of higher education, and between developing institu­ tions and other organizations, agencies and busi­ ness entities, which show promise as effective mea­ sures for strengthening the academic program and the administrative capacity of developing institutions, including such projects and activities as-- (A) exchange of faculty or students, including arrangements for bringing visit­ ing scholars to developing institutions, (B) faculty and administration improve­ ment programs, utilizing training, education (including fellowships leading to advanced degrees), internships, research participa­ tion, and other means, (C) introduction of new curricula and curricula materials, (D) development and operation of coop­ erative education programs involving alter­ nate periods of academic study and business or public employment, and 27

(E) joint use of facilities such as libraries or laboratories, including neces­ sary books, materials, and equipment; (2) National Teaching Fellowships to be awarded- by the Commissioner to highly qualified graduate stu­ dents and junior faculty members of institutions of higher education for teaching at developing institu­ tions; and (3) Professors Emeritus Grants to be awarded by the Commissioner to professors retired from active service at institutions of higher education to encour­ age them to teach or to conduct research at develop­ .. 19 ing institutions.

Administration of the Developing Institutions Program

After the Higher Education Act of 1965 became-law,- Dr. Peter

Muirhead, Associate Commissioner of Higher Education; and Dr. Willa

Player, the new Director of the Division of College Support, Office of

Education, became responsible for implementing the provisions of Title III.

The initial authorization was 55 million; five million was appropriated

and subsequently obligated. In 1966, 310 institutions submitted pro­

posals; grants were made to 127 colleges which through institutional

cooperation benefitted an additional 31 institutions. Whereas in 1976,

431 institutions submitted proposals and grants were made to 237 which

benefitted an additional 232 institutions. Total funds obligated in 20 1976 had increased to 110 million. Demand for support under the pro­ visions of Title III has increased significantly. Currently, the pro­ gram for strengthening developing institutions is administered through

19 . Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions), §301 (a), 79 Stat. 1229 (1965), 20 U.S.C. §1051-1055 (a) 1978.

20Cobb, Report on an Examination, p. 69. 28

the Division of Institutional Development in the Bureau of Higher and

Continuing Education.

There have been amendments to the original legislation of 1965.

One amendment which affected the administrative format of the Develop­

ing Institutions Program was the 1972 amendments of the Higher Educa­

tion Act of 1965. The Commissioner was empowered to award grants to

selected developing institutions:

Adjudged to have the potential for accelerated insti­ tutional development to expedite the institution's progress towards achieving both operational and fiscal stability and participation in the mainstream of American-higher education.

In 1973, the administrative format was divided into two program

branches: the Basic Institutional Development branch and the Advanced

Institutional Development branch.

The Basic Institutional Development Program (BIDP) focuses on nar­

rowing the gap between small weak colleges and stronger institutions, emphasizing the development of strengths in five principal categories of institutional support: administrative improvement, faculty develop­ ment, curriculum development, student services programs, and development programs. Services are delivered through three basic mechanisms: cooperative arrangements, National Teaching Fellowships, and Professor

Emeritus programs.

Cooperative arrangements allow the developing institutions to draw upon the talent and experience of stronger colleges and universities,

21 . Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions), §301 (a), 86 Stat. 243 (1972), 20 U.S.C. §1054 (b) 1978. 29

other developing institutions, and the educational resources of business

and industry. Two types of cooperative arrangements are funded,

bilateral and consortium arrangements.

A bilateral arrangement is a type of cooperative arrangement, in

which one developing institution draws upon the assistance and services

of another higher education institution, agency, organization, or busi­

ness entity to strengthen its academic quality, or administrative manage­

ment, and financial capacity.

A consortium arrangement is a type of cooperative arrangement, in

which two or more developing institutions agree to work with-each other

or enter into an arrangement with an institution of higher education,

agency, organization, or business entity to help a cluster of develop­

ing institutions strengthen their academic quality, or administrative 22 management, and financial capacity.

The Advanced Institutional Development Program (AIDP) was first

implemented in December, 1973. The developing institutions which were

selected for this program were considered to be at a stage of develop­

ment where they could rapidly move into the mainstream of education with

financial assistance from the federal government. High priority was

given to service the educational needs of low-income students by

(a) providing them with the background required to obtain employment

Frederic Jacobs and Tyler Tingley, The Evolution of Eligibility Criteria for Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Washington, D.C.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 148 242, 1977), p. 53. 30

with upward mobility; (b) preparing them for professions in which they

have been traditionally underrepresented,; or (c) qualifying them for

graduate training. These requirements may result in an institution’s

having to refine or redesign its academic program. The institution

develops (a) new curricula structure, employing varied methods of peda­

gogy; (b) new and/or flexible administrative procedures; (c) programs to

enable the establishment of fiscal and operational stability as well as 23 elevate academic quality.

In 1979, another change occurred in the administration of the

developing institutions program. A single program was established

rather than the two separate programs—BIDP and AIDP. The single pro­

gram is now referred to as the Strengthening Developing Institutions 24 Program (SDIP).

Other changes made regarding operation of the developing institu­ tions program have been changes in criteria for selecting a developing institution. There has been much debate about how to determine which institutions should become designated as developing. Originally,

Title III criteria were: FTE student enrollment, per cent of faculty with doctorates and with masters, average professional and instructor salaries, total current income, FTE student expenditure, and total volumes in the library. Some changes in Title III criteria were made to exclude faculty with masters and total current income and to add

23 Jacobs and Tingley, The Evolution of Eligibility Criteria for Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, p. 54.

24FR Doc. 40, §169.1 (1979), pp. 19128-19130. 31

total educational and.general expenditures and per cent of students from

low-income families. Also, an institution is evaluated in terms of

its vitality and viability. Factors considered in such a determina­

tion include its fund-raising capability and.whether the institution

has devised an institutional plan. Currently, two quantitative cri­

teria are used to rank applicant institutions: (a) Average educational

and general (E &.G) expenditures,per full-time equivalent (FTE) stu­

dent; and (b) Average Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) award

per FTE undergraduate student. According to the Office of Education,

"those colleges with small, operating expenditures per-student and concur­

rent large Basic Grant disbursements per student have proven to be 25 struggling for survival."

Title III Evaluations Studies

There have been three major evaluations of Title III since the beginning of the program. First, Howard evaluated the effectiveness of the selection criteria of Title III using quantitative measures of academic quality. Approximately 90 quantitative measures were identi­ fied, such as number of library books available, number of professors on the campus, and bachelor degrees conferred. The 90 measures were divided into five areas: student-related, faculty-related, financial, general institutional, and library. A panel of experts selected 30 variables from the 90 variables which they believed to be most sig­ nificantly related to institutional quality. Factor analysis and a

25FR Doc. 40, §169.1, pp. 19128-19130. 32

point-biserial procedure were applied to the 30 items. Five variables:

faculty/student ratio, students to Ph.D.'s, library volumes to enroll­

ment, income to enrollment, and first-time enrollment to bachelors

degrees awarded emerged as the most useful variables for relating

quantitative data to institutional quality. Howard concluded that

"awards were being made without knowledge of how an applicant or coop- 26 erating institution fits in the universe of higher education." Title III

measures used at the time were: FTE student enrollment, per cent of

faculty with doctorates and masters, average professor and instructor

salary, total current income, FTE student expenditure, and total volumes

in the library.

In 1970, Miller, Gurin, and Clark studied the effectiveness of

Title III funded programs at "selected" funded institutions. They

selected institutions with programs that were either exemplary or unique,

rather than on a random basis. Administrators and faculty attitudes were measured as a means of evaluating program effectiveness. Also,

they compared the questionnaire responses of faculty and administra­ tors at each institution to the institution’s quality ranking. Vari­ ables in their quality rating included student-faculty ratio, percentage of faculty with doctorates, education and general expense per student, number of library volumes per student, and average test scores (CEEB or

ACT) of entering freshmen. Their findings showed little relationship

7 6 aLawrence C. Howard, The Developing Colleges Program: A Study of Title III Higher Education Act of 1965 (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Institute of Human Relations, University of Wisconsin, 1967), pp. 82-101. 33

between institutional quality ranked by the quantitative measures and

faculty and administrator attitudes about program success. In their

conclusions, the authors stressed the importance of program develop­

ment and evaluation as important aspects of evaluating institutional

development. They also stressed the importance of the development of

campus administrative functions as well. According to the authors,

as institutions grow and mature, the administrative sup­ port necessary to lead and sustain them grows and matures; and conversely, that the inadequate development of admini­ strative support in many developing institutions consti­ tutes one of their most serious handicaps.

Four years later, Hodgkinson and Schenkel used a staged model of

institutional development in their evaluation of the impact of

Title III. The stages of institutional development proposed by

Hodgkinson and Schenkel•are analogous to the stages of growth in

national economics proposed by W. W. Rostow. Traditional Society,

Preconditions for Take-Off, and Drive to Maturity were the three

stages selected by Hodgkinson and Schenkel as the most applicable to

the study of Title III programs. Institutions at the traditional soci­

ety stage are likely candidates for a full cycle of institutional sup­

port under Title III, if judged worthy of support; institutions at the preconditions for take-off stage should at least be potentially ready for special Title III funds; and institutions at the take-off stage are the ideal recipients for special Title III grants since it has already

27 James L. Miller Jr., Gerald Gurin, and Mary Jo Clark, Use and Effectiveness of Title III in Selected "Developing Institutions" (Wash­ ington, D.C.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 035 105, 1970), pp. 34-101. 34

initiated some special programs of its own. Their evaluation used both

a survey of institutions receiving Title III funds between 1965 and

1974 and institutional ease studies. The case studies were used to

test the developmental model. The case study institutions were broken

into three groups that correspond with the three stages above: high-range

institutions, medium range, and low-range institutions respectively.

Measures of viability used to compare campuses were: leadership

dynamism and efficiency; financial stability; range of programs and

activities offered students; cost-effectiveness; sense of role and

long-range direction; student demand for involvement and/or outreach

efforts by school to uninvolved students; faculty-administrative rela­

tions; and community relations. They suggest rating institutions on

these variables as a way to get a reasonably accurate picture of a

developing institution’s stage of development. They concluded that

leadership potential is probably the most important single characteris­

tic in distinguishing the successful Title III programs from the less

successful ones, irrespective of institutional stage. Less than half

of the institutions were rated "good" in use of Title III funds. Of

the group receiving a good rating, over half were institutions in the

medium range. It seems that "development distance" from low range to

medium range was greater than the "development distance” from medium

range to high range.

Further, Wilberforce University was among the developing institu­

tions studied for this research. Wilberforce was described as one of the best developing institutions. It was reported that Title III is 35

helping Wilberforce move much faster and farther than the majority of 28 small colleges in the country.

While Gupta’s study is not referred to in the literature as a major

evaluation of Title III, he evaluated the impact of Title III at black

institutions in the South. He interviewed faculty and administrators

at twelve black institutions and analyzed data submitted by the insti­

tutions to the U.S. Office of Education. He concluded that funds pro­

vided under Title III have given black colleges a better chance to com­

pete with other institutions; the programs under Title III have had an

impact on both a short-term and long-term basis; and black institutions 29 have taken advantage of the opportunities provided under Title III.

Financing of Black Colleges

As reported earlier in this study, the federal government has been

involved in funding of higher education since the Northwest Ordinance

of 1785. However, federal financial involvement in higher education on

a large scale is rather recent. According to Pifer, black colleges,

except for Howard University, got virutally no federal aid at all up 30 until about 1960. However, the need for federal as well as other

9ft Harold L. Hodgkinson and Walter Schenkel, A Study of Title III of the Higher Education Act: The Developing Institutions Program (Washington, D.C.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 088 316), pp. 191-220. 29 Bhagwan S. Gupta, ”A Study of Title III, Higher Education Act of 1965, and an Evaluation of its Impact at Selected Predominantly Black Colleges” (Ph.D. dissertation, North Texas State University, 1971), pp. 111-123. 30 Alan Pifer, The Higher Education of Blacks in the United States (New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1973), p. 34. 36

monies existed. Howard traced the "roots" of Title III to predominantly

Negro colleges and has stated the documentation of need for federal aid 31 was at first an airing of the Negro colleges’ financial disadvantage.

McGrath’s study of predominantly Negro colleges was one of the

important sources for the basic concepts undergirding Title III.

McGrath reports the financial, leadership, curricular, and faculty prob­

lems of these colleges. However, he urged the preservation and streng­

thening of most (if not all) Negro colleges. In his opinion,

an effort to provide the financial means for expanding education opportunities will run into hundreds of mil­ lions of dollars and is beyond the means of States and private donors alone; therefore, the Federal Government must assume a major and ’inescapable' role in strengthen­ ing the predominantly Negro colleges and universities.32

Other studies have focused on problems facing black colleges.

Jencks and Riesman undertook the study of Negro colleges describing

their peculiar problems and characteristics and made predictions about

their future. Negro colleges were viewed as by-products of the Southern casts system and a response to racism by Jencks and Riesman. Private

Negro colleges were described as having no endowment, no alumni capa­ ble of supporting them at more than a token level, little time and imagination to develop programs that would get federal or foundation support, few contacts with the men who distribute such funds, and no obvious appeal to white philanthropy, faculty, or students. Public

31 Lawrence C. Howard, The Developing Colleges Program, p. 9. 32 Earl J. McGrath, The Predominantly Negro Colleges and Universi­ ties in Transition (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965), p. 168. 37

Negro colleges were viewed as somewhat more affluent than.private Negro

colleges in terms of salaries and working conditions, but they have a

difficult time competing for competent faculty and are likely to remain

fourth-rank institutions at the tail end of the academic procession.

In spite of the bleak picture portrayed of black colleges, Jencks and

Riesman predict most Negro colleges are likely to survive and to edu­

cate an appreciable proportion of all undergraduates for many years to 33 come.

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education described the plight

of black colleges in the.seventies.

The colleges and universities founded for Black Americans face most.-of.the-problems, of -expanding-enroll­ ments and offerings with limited resources that confront all institutions of higher education. They also face special problems that arise from their unique history, from racial discrimination, and, within the last two decades, from abrupt changes in their relationships to their traditional constituents and to other colleges and universities ... As they face the 1970’s, colleges founded for Negroes must not only operate under the new premises . . . but must also overcome long-standing handicaps that reflect, to a considerable extent, the historical disadvantages born by the young men and women they have served.84

Thompson reports that the annual budgets of colleges for blacks are

small and most of them operate with substantial deficits from year to year; most of their students are poor and cannot afford to pay for their education; they have relatively few wealthy alumni and powerful friends

33 . Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic, pp. 407-475. 3A uarnegie Commission on Higher Education, From Isolation to Main­ stream (New York; McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971), p. 6. 38

to stabilize them, therefore there is little or no endowment; and they

have a small number of students (an average of 700 to 800) which is too 35 small a student body to be a sound financial venture.

Two years earlier, Bowles and DeCosta had noted the problem of

underenrollment at black colleges. They assert that in general black

colleges do not have as many students as they can accommodate which is

reflected in underpriced tuition and services and large grants for stu­

dent aid which are supported by heavy borrowing. The underpricing and

the borrowing constitute direct drains upon operating funds by with­

drawing or not supplying money which should go into instructional costs

via faculty salaries.

In a study of matched samples of black and white private institu­

tions, Jellema found similarities between both institutions in expendi­

tures per student for instruction and departmental research, operation,

and maintenance of facilities, and average net surplus/deficit per stu­

dent in current funds. Black colleges fell short of reaching minimum

level for library support, their faculty salaries were lower, and greater 37 amounts of student financial aid were needed.

35 Daniel C. Thompson, Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1973), p. 248.

q ¿l Frank Bowles and Frank DeCosta, Between Two Worlds: A Profile of Negro Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971), pp. 179-181. 37 William W. Jellema, Higher Education Finance: A Comparative Study of Matched Samples of Black and White Private Institutions (Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, 1972), p. viii. 39

Few would disagree that the plight of historical, predominately

black institutions, especially those in the private sector, has been

one of austere endowments, low operating budgets and little resource

development monies. Yet, studies indicate that black colleges will con­

tinue to survive. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach­

ing report optimism for the future of black colleges and other private

institutions. This optimism was based on special links to a specified

constituency, a clear sense of mission, a strong leadership and exper- 38 ience in coping with financial and academic stress. However, efforts

by white colleges and universities to integrate their campuses as a

result of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have had negative

effects on black colleges and universities. A recent report on black

enrollment in higher education pointed out the number of black students attending colleges and universities has more than doubled since the beginning of this decade, increasing from 522,000 in 1970 to 1.1 mil­ lion in the fall of 1977. It was also pointed out that in 1965, 82 per cent of the black students in the South were enrolled in black colleges, 39 but by 1976 that figure had been reduced to 43 per cent.

Despite accelerated recruitment by white colleges to enroll black students, these institutions have failed to retain and graduate blacks in proportion to the number they have enrolled. Then, too,

38 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, More Than Survival: Prospects for Higher Education in a Period of Uncertainty (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1975), pp. 76-77. ■^Lorenzo Middleton, "Enrollment of Blacks Doubled Since 1970," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 (January, 1979), p. 2. 40

since at least 40 per cent of all black college students attend black

institutions, Lockett and Simpkins and other advocates of black-colleges 40 argue for continued support of black colleges and universities.

On the national scene, the Federal Interagency Committee on Educa­

tion reported $3,668 billion of federal aid went to colleges and uni­

versities throughout the nation FY 1970. A year earlier $3,782 billion

had gone to institutions of higher education. Despite the national

decline, aid to black colleges increased by sixteen per cent between

1969 and 1970. This increase in aid to black colleges was viewed as a

concerted effort by Federal agencies to improve support to black col­ leges. Of the -$125.5 million to black colleges in 1970, 57 per cent-of

the funds were Title III monies. Hence, Title III was a major source of 41 federal funds to black colleges.

Summary

Federal education policy has grown and expanded over the years.

This trend is likely to continue since many colleges and universities are experiencing or are expected to experience enrollment declines.

Federal aid will be in demand because the federal government has the taxing strength and therefore the revenue that smaller units of govern-

40 Arnold Lockett and Edward Simpkins, "Black Colleges: An Endan­ gered Foundation," Phi Delta Kappan, 59 (October, 1977), p. 117. 41 Federal Interagency Committee on Education, Federal Agencies and Black Colleges (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971), p. 1. 41

42 ment do not have. Since traditional black colleges and universi­

ties have a history of financial problems, it is not surprising to

find that federal aid is in great demand by them. Between 1966 and

1977, 800 developing institutions received 700 million dollars. Black

colleges have been recipients of the largest per cent of assistance 43 from the Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Institutions Program.

Since Title III is the largest direct, institutional-aid pro­

gram for colleges and universities in the federal budget, and since

the Title III program has been in existence for fourteen years, exter­

nal evaluations of Title III programs seem appropriate. Furthermore,

a review of the literature has revealed only three major research pro­

jects on Title III, and all of these were made prior to implementation of the Advanced Institutional Development Program (AIDP). In light of this situation, it seemed worthwhile to make an interim study on

Wilberforce University, a private, predominantly black developing institution in Ohio.

42 William W. Jellema, From Red to Black, the Financial Status of Private Colleges (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973), p. 146. A 3 'Lorenzo Middleton, "Financial Aid to Developing Colleges," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 (January, 1979), p. 4 CHAPTER III

Method and Procedure

The purposes of this chapter are (1) to identify the method used to obtain data for the study and (2) to describe the procedures for tabu­ lation of data.

Methods of the Study

The purpose of this study was to provide answers to the following questions:

1. Did Wilberforce University do what they committed themselves

to doing by the several Title III grants received?

2. Did Wilberforce University experience development by the

several development criteria of Title III (enrollment, faculty

with doctorates, faculty salaries, low-income students, educa­

tional and general expenditures, educational and general

expenditures per student, and number of volumes in the

library) over the time of Title III participation and what

was the development experience relative to other Title III

participating institutions, and to other institutions,

regionally and nationally?

3. What do faculty and key administrative personnel at Wilber­

force believe about the success and importance of Title III

participation at Wilberforce as reported by their responses

on a questionnaire?

42 43

Population

This study focused on Wilberforce University, a private four-year

historical and predominantly black institution. Wilberforce is the only

private black university in Ohio. The University began receiving Title III

funds in 1966 when the program was first launched. Wilberforce Univer­

sity has remained in the program as a developing institution without

cessation of Title III funds for fourteen years.

Procedures for the Collection of Data

A review of the literature pertaining to Title Ill-Strengthening

Developing Institutions Program was conducted.

An appointment was made with the Title III Coordinator at Wilber­

force University to discuss their Title III program and to plan a sched­

ule for reviewing Title III documents at Wilberforce. Copies of Title III

proposals submitted by Wilberforce to the U.S. Office of Education for

Title III funds and other Title III documents were requested from the

U.S. Office of Education and reviewed. A questionnaire was then con­

structed for faculty and key administrative personnel at Wilberforce to

obtain data on their beliefs about the success and importance of Title III

participation at Wilberforce. Questions on the questionnaire, which is presented in Appendix C, were grouped according to the various Title III programs being implemented at Wilberforce. Also, general questions about Title III were included. Questions on the survey were categorized as follows: opinions about the importance of each Title III program, opinions about effectiveness of each Title III program, opinions about additional monies needed to make each Title III program more effective, 44

effects of Title III programs on individual workloads, important needs

of the institution not funded by Title III, ways Title III has affected

decision-making at the University, impact of Title III research and

evaluation procedures on non-Title III funded programs, general com­

ments about impact of Title III, kind of contact individuals have had

with Title III programs, and length of time an individual has been work­

ing at the University. Faculty or administrative status was indicated

also.

The questionnaire was field tested prior to actual use by the Title III

Coordinator at Wilberforce and three faculty members. Their comments and

suggestions regarding completeness and validity of the questionnaire

were used. The questionnaire was modified. An introductory cover let­

ter detailing the purpose of the study, giving assurances that indi­

vidual responses would remain confidential, and identifying the question­

naire as being supported by the Research and Planning Office was writ­

ten by the Research and Planning Director/Title III Coordinator and is

presented in Appendix C. A promise was made by the researcher to for­

ward a summary of results of the research to the Coordinator. It was

felt that a questionnaire sanctioned by the institution would insure a

higher response rate than would be possible with a questionnaire asso­ ciated only with dissertation research.

On September 1, 1979, fifty-nine questionanires were mailed to the

Title III Coordinator at Wilberforce University for distribution. Each questionnaire had been enclosed in a Wilberforce campus mailing envelope with the names of faculty and administrators who had been employed at 45

the University for at least one year. On September 4, 1979, question­

naires were placed in the campus mail. Respondents were asked to com­

plete questionnaires and return them to the Research and Planning Office

no later than September 11, 1979 (See Appendix C). The Title III Coor­

dinator waited about a week before mailing the questionnaires to the

researcher thinking some questionnaires would be returned later than

September 11, 1979.

The first follow-up consisted of a reminder letter to persons who

had not returned their questionnaire with another questionnaire enclosed

just in case the first one had been misplaced. Also, a self-addressed,

stamped envelope was enclosed. A second follow-up consisted of phone

calls to individuals who had not responded. A total of thirty-two

questionnaires were returned to the researcher, but three of them had

not been completed.

In addition to collecting questionnaire data, data regarding

Title III development criteria (enrollment, faculty and doctorates, faculty salaries, low-income students, educational and general expendi­ tures, educational and general expenditures per student, and number of volumes in the library) were collected for 1973-74 and 1976-77 from vari­ ous reports. Two kinds of comparisons were made with this data:

(1) change at Wilberforce in the above institutional characteristics identified as targets for change by the provisions of Title III, and

(2) change at Wilberforce in foregoing characteristics relative to change in the same characteristics at other colleges and universities. The com­ parison groups were selected to provide (a) a comparison with other 46

developing colleges and universities participating in the Title III

program which are presented in Appendix B, (b) a regional perspective—

public colleges and universities in Ohio, and (c) a national perspective

of four-year private colleges and universities. The other developing

colleges and universities presented in Appendix B were selected for

this study because they were four-year private colleges and universi­

ties which began participating in the Advanced Institutional Develop­

ment Program along with Wilberforce University in 1974. Also, data were

available for both 1973 and 1976 for these institutions in the U.S. Office

of Education.

Data regarding Title III proposals, grants awarded, and evaluation

reports of Title III programs at Wilberforce University were analyzed.

Commitments made by Wilberforce University via proposals and acceptance

of Title III funds were summarized. Evaluation reports submitted to the

Office of Education by Wilberforce and external evaluation consultants

were analyzed and summarized. Comparisons were made between commitments

to Title III programs and accomplishments by Wilberforce as of July, 1978.

Tabulation of Questionnaire Data

Information obtained from questionnaires were extracted, analyzed,

and categorized according to opinions presented about Title III partici­

pation at Wilberforce University. Per cents were calculated and data were appropriately displayed in tables. CHAPTER IV

Analysis of Data

The purposes of this chapter are to describe commitments to

Title III programs made by Wilberforce University via a basic propo­

sal and a supplemental grant and to provide evaluation measures of these

programs; to present descriptions of seven Title III development criteria

and to analyze data derived from questionnaires received from faculty

and administrators at Wilberforce University reporting their beliefs

about the success and importance of Title III participation at Wilber­

force. This information will be presented in narrative and tabular

form. The program commitments and evaluations, Title III development

criteria, and questionnaire analyses are presented separately.

Title III Program Commitments and

Evaluation Measures

Wilberforce University’s proposal to the U.S. Office of Education

in 1974 requested monies to implement seventeen programs and a supple­ mental grant of eight programs was approved in 1975.^ Evaluations of

Title III programs were to be conducted internally at Wilberforce and 2 by external consultants. A summary of Wilberforce University's com­ mitments to Title III programs and evaluations to date (July, 1978) as reported in evaluations submitted to the U.S. Office of Education follows:

J~Grant Application for AIDP—Wilberforce University, 1974 and Sup­ plemental Grant, 1975, U.S. Office of Education. 2 Evaluation Reports on thé Advanced Institutional Development Pro­ gram for Wilberforce University, U.S. Office of Education.

47 48

First-Year Program Coordination

Commitments: It was the intent of the University to: (1) hire a

full-time General Studies Chairman to coordinate Freshman Seminar, Compo­

sition, Reading Center, Thinking Skills, Supportive Skills, Basic Math,

and Freshman Counseling and Orientation; (2) reduce the failure rate

within freshman courses; (3) raise the performance levels of freshmen in

reading, writing, and mathematics; (4) reduce freshman attrition; and

(5) to create an academic environment in which freshmen would be highly

motivated for academic performance and less failure-prone. Measure of

the success of First-Year Program-coordination would be faculty’s

opinion as to whether thisprogram improves- the ability of students to

successfully cope with upper-level academic courses.

Measurements: A General Studies chairman was appointed in 1975 and

given the responsibility for coordination of First-Year program com­

ponents. A developmental mathematics course was staffed and offered as

were Communications 111 and 112 and a developmental reading course.

Academic abilities assessments, including ACT, Math Placement, and Iowa

Silent Reading Test were made and a performance profile of entering

freshmen was completed. A First-Year Program Workshop was conducted,

freshman seminars were staffed and offered and data were obtained from math, reading, and composition program directors regarding the number of students completing minimum criterion performance standards. Fresh­ man attrition due to failure in freshman level courses was reduced.

The competency levels of freshmen in basic skills areas were raised in math, reading, and writing—so that they are adequately prepared to mas­ 49

ter the next level of course work. On-campus enrollment reached 910 in

Fall 1976. Some 400 students were assigned to Cooperative. More instruc

tional methods compatible with student capabilities and styles of learn­

ing were developed. It is reported that coordination has resulted in

more continuity between freshman-level courses and upper-level.

Basic Mathematics Program Improvement

Commitments: It was the intent of the University to (1) raise the

mathematical skills of entering students who exhibit deficiencies in

mathematics, (2) reduce attrition due to failure in mathematics, and

(3) provide students with basic mathematical skills which will enable

them to succeed in upper-level courses and programs requiring these

skills. The program is a competency-based one with modules containing

specific instructional objectives and learning experiences. An alterna­ tive set of modules has been developed for science majors. AIDP funds were requested for salaries for two faculty members and two tutors.

Measurements: Diagnostic testing has been provided and a set of twenty-three competency-based modules with accompanying audio-tutorial cassettes were produced. On the average, at least sixty-five per cent of the students enrolled in the program attend math laboratory daily.

Follow-up on students in upper-level courses completing the Basic Math

Program shows an increase in the percentage of students passing these courses. Sixty per cent developed the prerequisite math skills and exited from the program. The average post-test score of the science students using alternative modules was ten per cent higher than the non­ science students using the traditional modules. 50

Freshman Composition Program Improvement and Freshman Laboratory

Commitments: The University proposed to (1) adjust academic pro­

grams to student capabilities and (2) strengthen their communication

skills. Salaries for faculty were requested and funds for acquisition

of instructional materials and supplies needed for the freshman lab.

Measurements: The Freshman Composition Program consisting of Com­

munications 111 and 112 began in 1974. At that time, it was modified

from the traditional approach to the modular concept. Since 1974, the

program had been modified yearly by staff. Both Communication 111 and

112 consist of two modules. Students experiencing difficulty in gram­

mar, sentence structure, and paragraph development are assigned to the

writing lab which is supervised by a full-time instructor. The FCP

incorporates an end-of-term grade of "X" to indicate that a student

not completing all levels of a course must re-enroll and continue

where he/she left off. Course evaluation forms completed by students

indicate that ninety per cent of the students are satisfied with the

various components of FCP—the writing lab, grading system, texts,

teaching methods, and testing procedures. A questionnaire study on

student writing performance has been delayed. A study is being con­ ducted to ascertain whether a composition requirements test will be reinstated. This program is reported to be effective for helping stu­ dents to develop competent writing skills. However, excessive absentee ism is a problem. Some thirty per cent of the students drop out and twenty per cent receive grade "X" for poor attendance. 51

Improve and Expand Mass Media Communications Program

Commitments: The University proposed to (1) improve programs in

the career-related fields of communications, (2) reduce transfers of

upper-level students, and (3) improve quality of first job offers to

seniors. Print journalism and photography curricular would be revised,

develop a community-wide radio broadcast capability, and graduate at

least ten majors in mass media by 1978. Staff salaries were requested.

Measurements: The program is coordinated by a professor who

reports through the Humanities Division chairman to the Academic Dean.

An instructor assists the coordinator in broadcasting and another

instructor assists with photography. The curriculum in print and

broadcast journalism and in photography were revised to initiate a

practicum program, and to establish a campus radio station. The radio

station is in the process of being completed. With respect to long­

term goals, it is reported that relevant education is being extended,

especially to minority youth. The number of graduates in mass media

was not provided. '

Expansion of Management Program

Commitments: The University proposed to (1) expand the business program through the development of new courses in personnel, marketing, production, and general business management, (2) reduce transfers of upper-level students, and (3) improve quality of first job offers to seniors.

Measurements: The University has been unable to provide resources for hiring new faculty to develop and teach all of the new courses in 52

marketing and finance. Some courses have been developed but are not

yet offered.

Improve Teacher Education

Commitments: It was the intent of the University to (1) establish

a Language Arts Center for improving the oral speaking patterns of stu­

dents in the Teacher Education division, (2) develop an assessment

design for prescribing proficiencies in oral expression, and (3) pro­

vide structured field experience.

Measurements: One person was given primary responsibility for

developing the Language Arts Center, but the Center has not functioned

as ^planned. Criteria for field experience have not yet been developed.

Materials were not available for the diagnostic survey which has not

been completed. Field experience was provided in more hours than

required by the state for three students in 1977.

Audio Visual Services Development

Commitments: The University proposed to (1) improve faculty use of

Audio-Visual Services and (2) expand resources prior to moving into

expanded facilities in the Learning Resources Center. Funds were

requested for a director.

Measurements: Audio-Visual Services were located in a projection

room near a hall. The program has moved from repair of old equipment and supply of needed maintenance to expanded equipment, faculty, and

student utilization and new equipment in a new laboratory. Equipment has increased thirty per cent mainly in film and cassettes. Student usage patterns are moving from language laboratory resource utilization 53

to use of resources in religion, psychology, and physics due to the

dropping of a foreign language requirement. Programs related to six

courses are available. Faculty satisfaction and use has been measured

as satisfied and their stated need is for more topics in their subject

areas. At least two faculty are designing their own AV materials.

Learning Resources Center Development

Commitments: The Learning Resources Center would provide students

with (1) greater variety of alternative routes to competency, (2) increased

individualized instruction opportunities, and (3) availability of learn­

ing resources—films, audio programs, video tape programs, film loops,

slide programs, microfilm materials, and printed matter for a wide

range of academic programs and student abilities. Federal dollars were

requested to support the salary cost of the director and his secretary.

Measurements: The Stokes Learning Resources Center was completed

in the summer of 1977. The building contains library facilities, an

Audio-Visual services area and a radio control room. The first floor

is occupied by four learning laboratories, a conference room, and

several faculty offices. Moveable equipment was purchased, a course on

library use was offered, space assignments have been completed, -and a

director hired. The director has expressed a desire to see more stu­

dents using library resources, especially upperclassmen.

Joint Programs with Central State University

Commitments: The University proposed to engage in cooperative efforts with Central State: faculty meeting, faculty exchange program, combined classes where there is low enrollment, i.e. science classes, 54

and to explore possibility of joint program, i.e. Art. Funds were

requested for faculty salaries for the exchange component of the pro­

gram and for the joint faculty meeting during the first two years.

Measurements: The faculty exchange program never developed. Some

success was experienced with the exchange of students. WU students

were able to enroll in CSU courses in organic chemistry, physical chemis­

try, and physics. Similarly, CSU students enrolled in WU courses offered

in biochemistry, experimental biology, and botany. Joint programs in

the areas of health-care administration and chemistry have been approved

by Wilberforce University’s Board of Trustees and Central State Univer­

sity is waiting for the approval of the Ohio Board of Regents. Wilber­

force now offers two majors which it would not offer without the two

joint programs.

Management Information System and Information Services

Commitments: The University proposed to (1) develop a student data

sub-system—a computerized system encompassing all student data related to registration, cooperative education, institutional research, faculty assignments, and grade reporting, (2) provide management with needed information on a timely basis, and (3) serve the campus community in evaluation of programs. Funds were requested for supplies and salaries for MIS manager and two data control coordinators.

Measurements: While payroll, personnel, and student information sub-system development are the major tasks of this program, the main effort has been devoted to making reports timely. The North Central

Association review complimented the budget information improvements as 55

did most activity coordinators. The MIS has enabled the institution to

advance its internal and external management ’’credibility’’ to such a

degree that Wilberforce is now eligible for loan rates of prime plus

two per cent; which is down from a full ten per cent. For the first

time, recently there is an excess of revenues over expenditures. The

monthly and annual reports and the President’s weekly meeting are the

main foci of MIS improvements.

Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs

Commitments: (1) The University proposed to recruit talented

students for high potential career-related programs such as engineering,

mass media communications, and business management and (2) increase enroll

ment in these special programs by seventy-five additional new freshmen

in 1975 and 150 additional new freshmen in 1976. Funds were requested

for partial funding of recruitment staff salaries.

Measurements: New recruiting areas were developed in New York,

Georgia, and Michigan. High school visits for 800 students and special

programs for 100 were conducted. For fall 1976, 250 were admitted to

accounting, business, biology, engineering, mass media, pre-law, and

rehabilitation. Also, enrollment of transfers went up to 200.

Expand Career Planning

Commitments: The University’s commitment was to (1) hire a full­ time placement director responsible for assisting students in career planning, (2) improve the quality of first job offers to students upon graduation, and (3) assist alumni in securing new positions. 56

Measurements: Graduating seniors are being offered higher salaries

which is probably a result of their having had a co-op experience. An

increased number of recruiters, representing a broader geographical and

industrial range of employment opportunities have participated in career

week activities. More than 100 students were interviewed and counseled.

Also, placement support was offered to 1974-76 graduates and they were

surveyed.

Expand Cooperative Education

Commitments: The University proposed to (1) improve opportunities

for work experience related to career choices, (2) increase variety and

geographic spread of co-op jobs, (3) improve occupational level of co-op

jobs, and (4) provide more frequent job-site counseling and support.

Measurement: New counselors were recruited and a co-op assess­

ment instrument for returning students administered. A pre-co-op career

education course was offered to a selected group of students; employers

were contacted in fields traditionally closed to minorities; and health

agencies were contacted. Some 100 direct pay jobs were attempted;

thirty-seven resulted. Students have been provided with more frequent

on-site counseling and support. It was reported that students’ prepara­

tion for co-op was improved and the quantity and quality of career-

related co-op experiences for students in humanities, social sciences, and health-related fields were increased. Some 95 per cent of graduat­

ing students had co-ops in their fields; twenty-five were developed; and forty-one jobs were new. 57

Dual Degree Engineering Program

Commitments: University commitments were: (1) to motivate stu­

dents to pursue an engineering career, (2) to better prepare entering

students for quality college work—provide three years of general studies

and pre-engineering at Wilberforce and two years of engineering studies

at the University of Dayton, and (3) to enroll fifty new students each

year into engineering studies.

Measurements: There were twenty-five new students in the program as

of fall 1976, but a total of fifty students per year was expected.

Scholarship assistance was provided to the students requiring it. Some

of the courses needed have not been given but staffing for the engineer­

ing study room was provided. There was no increase in the number of

Wilberforce students preparing for careers in engineering or in pursu­

ing careers in science.

AIDP Coordination

Commitments: The AIDP coordinator was given total responsibility

for coordinating, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on Title III

activities to the Office of Education. Funds were requested for staff

salaries, for both sponsoring faculty workshops on campus and for enabl­

ing people involved in Title III activities to attend meetings and work­

shops off campus.

Measurements:- The Title III coordinator was the Associate Academic

Dean and was in the position to make AIDP programs an integral part of

the institution which is what did happen. The coordinator conducts workshops for project directors, submits quarterly reports to the 58

Office of Education, and monitors activities. Activity directors have

been employed where necessary, program budgets were prepared, and communi

cation with personnel responsible for AIDP activities has been maintained

Planning, Research, and Evaluation

Commitments: University commitments were to (1) periodically

revise the University’s Five-Year Plan, (2) coordinate proposal efforts,

(3) assess entering strengths and weaknesses of freshmen, (4) evaluate

post-graduate performance, (5) measure cost and progress of AID programs

in order to provide cost/benefit estimates of the University academic

operations, and (6) provide timely reporting, monitoring, and evalua­

tion information.

Measurements: Most performance evaluation measures have been

developed. The quality and usefulness of research reports have not been

impacted upon, as these reports have not been completed. The Univer­

sity Plan was issued spring of 1977. Evaluation of post-graduate per­

formance continues to be ineffective, because difficulty persists in

studying post-graduate performance: sixty returns out of 400 post­

cards is inadequate. New and inexpensive follow-up techniques continue

to be sought.

Basic Science Enhancement Program

Commitment: The University proposed to implement a science pro­

gram to provide students with pluralistic routes for mastering basic

scientific concepts. Funds were requested for salaries and fringe bene­

fits of three professors. The professors would be paid according to the amount of time they work with the science program. Also, funds were 59

requested for a half-time laboratory assistant and for purchasing needed

instructional supplies and materials.

Measurements: The Life Science course has been converted from a

traditional lecture laboratory course to a modular instructional course

design. In the Physical Science and Natural Science courses, audio­

visual materials and student research projects are used to augment the

traditional lecture-lab approach. Learning resources are made availa­

ble for student use beyond the scheduled class time. Each trimester

at least sixty per cent of the Natural Science students complete at

least two research projects. In a pre-test/post-test comparison of

scores on alternate forms of a life science test, it was reported that

the mean score for all Students increased : by twenty.: paints.

Competency-Based Instruction Development Program

Commitment: The University proposed to develop a variety of

instructional methods compatible with student capabilities, styles of

learning and need. Selected faculty members will be supported finan­

cially during the spring-summer trimester to develop competency-based

programs for their courses. Salaries of eight faculty members and funds

for needed materials were requested.

Measurements: Written proposals are submitted to the Academic

Affairs Committee, the committee responsible for selecting participants and monitoring this AIDP activity. Two courses have been developed as a result of the instructional grant: Introduction to the Study of the

Bible and Introduction to Religion. The courses are included as options under the General Studies religion requirement. Three faculty members 60

were provided with opportunities to develop new teaching strategies.

Two sets of modules have been tested. Three sets of modules will be

produced each year which have been judged adequate or better by the

Academic Affairs Committee.

Interdisciplinary Studies Program

Commitment: The University proposed to hire a professor to develop

and teach both a senior synthesis course, Great Issues, and the intro­

ductory social science sequence, Social Science I and II.

Measurements: The Great Issues course exposes students to-a vari­

ety of perspectives, including humanistic, scientific, and social sci­

ence, on a variety of contemporary problems or issues. The social sci­

ence sequence provides a reasonable overview of current knowledge and

theory in the fields of social psychology, sociology, anthropology, eco­ nomics, and political science. Students’ performance and results from course evaluations seem to indicate that the program is successful. In addition to teaching the course content, the instructor emphasizes the development and utilization of competent reading and writing skills in his assignments. It was reported that students have developed a greater interest in general reading as a result of current events assignments.

Allied Health Program

Commitment: The University proposed to add courses in Human

Anatomy, Histology, Micro-biology, and Bacteriology to the curriculum.

Salaries for a director, faculty, and part-time lab assistant were requested along with funds to purchase needed instructional materials. 61

Measurements: Comparing the grades in selected classes of students

participating in the program with the grades of students before the

establishment of the allied health program, instructors observed a

noticeable improvement in the grades of the program students. Depend­

ing on the class, improvement in grades ranged from ten per cent to

twenty per cent. Faculty have experienced difficulty obtaining co-op

jobs and clinical experience positions for students in the medical

technology program. Pre-pharmacy and health-care administration pro­

grams have encountered few problems.

Pre-Law Program

Commitment: The University proposed to add four new courses to the

pre-law program and hire a pre-law director. The core skills courses

are legal reasoning, legal writing, statistics for lawyers, and reading

legal materials. Also, internships in a variety of legal settings would

be set up. Funds were requested for the director, an instructor, needed

instructional materials and supplies, and for some travel.

Measurements: A director was hired and courses were added to the

curriculum. Counseling for pre-law students is provided. It was antici­

pated that two employers would be contracted to provide legal aid ser­

vices, but this has not been done. Three students have been recommended

to the co-op office, but none have been placed.

Faculty Tutorial Program

Commitment: The University will implement a faculty tutorial pro­ gram as a supplement to regular classroom sessions. The director will supervise five selected faculty tutors and upperclass students assigned 62

to the program. Funds were requested for the director’s salary and

fringe benefits and faculty salaries.

Measurements : Faculty were selected along with upperclass students

Results from the instrument completed by tutees, the Self-Evaluation

Survey, show that approximately ninety per cent are satisfied with ser­

vice provided by the program. Also, a review of grades show that at

least seventy-five per cent of all students who received individualized and/or small group tutorial services attain a passing grade of "C" or above in the specific course for which such assistance was given.

Fund-raising Training

Information was not-available for the fund-raising training pro­ gram. Actually, it is not funded by Title III and should not have been included on the questionnaire.

Title III Development Criteria

Changes in Title III development criteria (enrollment, faculty with doctorates, faculty salaries, low-income students, educational and general expenditures (E & G), E & G expenditures per student, and number of volumes in the library for 1973-74 and 1976-77 at Wilberforce

University were compared to changes in the same characteristics at other developing institutions, Ohio public universities, and four-year colleges and universities nationally. Each institutional characteristic is discussed separately and changes are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

6, and 7. 63

Enrollment

Between fall 1973 and 1976, full-time enrollment at Wilberforce

University increased from 1,042 to 1,107 students, a 6.24 per cent

enrollment increase. Comparisons to other developing institutions reflect

an enrollment increase from 29,252 to 34,174, a 16.8 per cent increase;

compared to Ohio public universities’ enrollment from 220,351 to 233,299,

a 5.88 per cent increase; and compared to four-year private colleges

and universities nationally enrollment increased from 1,403,970 to

I, 557,726, a 10.95 per cent increarse. As presented in Table 1, the

enrollment increases occurred over the same period of time.

Enrollment at Wilberforce and Ohio public universities lagged

behind enrollment increases at other developing institutions and at

four-year private colleges and universities nationally. The lag in

enrollment at Ohio public universities could have been indicative of a

national enrollment trend at public colleges and universities in 1976.

For the first time, public colleges and universities experienced a drop

in enrollment in fall 1976 from 11,290,719 students in 1975 down to 3 II, 121,426. Whereas, Wilberforce might have experienced more competi­

tion for students than other developing institutions as a result of integration of predominately white colleges and universities.

Overall, college and university enrollment has been on the increase for quite some time. As indicated in Figure 1.2, in 1930, colleges and

3 Andrew J. Pepin, Fall Enrollment in Higher Education-1976 (Washing­ ton, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1978), p. 3. 64

TABLE 1

Full-Time Enrollment Fall Head Counts

Colleges and Other Ohio Universities Wilberforce Developing Public Nationally Year University Institutions Universities Four-Year Private

1973-74 1,042 29,252 220,351 1,403,970

1976-77 1,107 34,174 233,299 1,557,726

6.24% inc. 16.8% inc. 5.88% inc. 10.95% inc.

Sources: Columns 1 and 2: U.S. Office of Education, Qualification for Advanced Status Reports--1973-1976.

Column 3: Ohio Board of Regents, Ohio Basic Data Series, Higher Education, Columbus, Ohio (1979).

Column 4: Pepin, Andrew J., Fall Enrollment in Higher Education 1976, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics (1978). 65 S N O I L L I M

N I

FIGURE 1.2. Enrollment Trends in Higher Education 66

universities enrolled about 1,100,737 students; in 1940, 1,494,203 stu­

dents; in 1950, 2,659,021 students; in I960, 3,215,544 students; in 1970,

8,649,368; and 12,376,000 students have been projected for fall 1980 4 enrollment. Shifts in enrollment can be attributed to such factors as

growth of two-year and public institutions and increasing accessibility

of higher education to all segments of the population, especially women

and minorities. Also, there has been a shift in the age distribution

of college students from students under twenty-five years of age to per­ sons enrolled from older age groups.*3

Faculty with Doctorates

Compared to other developing institutions, Wilberforce did not

increase the number of faculty with doctorates as reflected in Table 2

between 1973 and 1976. Other developing colleges increased the number

of faculty with doctorates by 10.4 per cent. Ohio public universities

increased the number of faculty with doctorates by 6.8 per cent. Salary

competition with Ohio public universities might have been a factor.

Also, it is difficult to attract faculty to the Xenia/Wilberforce area which is somewhat isolated. Data were not available for four-year pri­ vate colleges and universities nationally.

^Seymour E. Harris, A Statistical Portrait of Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972), pp. 926-927; and 1980 projec­ tion by Martin M. Frankel, (ed.), Projections of Education Statistics to 1986-87 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1977) , p. 20. 3W. Vance Grant and C. George Lind, Digest of Education Statistics 1977-78 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1978) , pp. 75-91. 67

TABLE 2

Per Cent of Full-Time Faculty with Doctorates

Other Ohio Colleges and Developing Public Universities Wilberforce Institutions Universities Nationally Year University : (Mean Value) Four-Year Private

1973-74 40 41.2 47.1 *NA

1976-77 40 45.5 50.3 *NA

0% 10.4% inc. 6.8% inc.

Source: U.S. Office of Education, Qualification for Advanced Status Reports—1973 and 1976.

Ohio Board of Regents, Ohio Basic Data Series, Higher Educa­ tion, Columbus, Ohio.

*NA indicates data were not available for 1973 and 1976. 68

Faculty Salaries

As indicated in Table 3, between 1973 and 1976, faculty salaries at

Wilberforce for professors, associate and assistant, professors, and

instructors increased from $16,700 to $17,800, a 6.6 per cent increase;

$14,200 to $15,700, a 10.6 per cent increase; $12,400 to $13,900, a

12.1 per cent increase; and $10,700 to $11,500, a 7.5 per cent increase,

respectively. Compared to other developing institutions, faculty sala­

ries increased at all levels also: professor salaries increased from

$18,400 to $20,300 (10.3 per cent); associate and assistant professor

salaries increased from $15,000 to $16,700 (11.3 per cent) and from

$12,700 to $13,700 (7.9 per cent); and instructor salaries increased

from $10,500 to $11,500 (9.5 per cent). Salaries at Ohio public univer­

sities increased at all levels from $23,627 to $28,545, a 20.8 per cent

increase; $18,200 to $22,173, a 21.8 per cent increase; from $15,200 to

$18,500, a 21.7 per cent increase; and from $12,272 to $15,027, a 22.4

per cent increase for professors, associate and assistant professors,

and instructors respectively. Faculty salaries increased at four-year private colleges and universities nationally for professors ($15,960 to

$17,620, a 10.4 per cent increase); for associate professors ($12,700 to

$14,390, a 13.3 per cent increase); for assistant professors ($10,890 to $12,330, a 13.2 per cent increase); and for instructors ($9,270 to

$10,290, a 11.0 per cent increase).

Although faculty salaries increased at all levels, salary increases for professors at Wilberforce lagged behind other developing institu­ tions, Ohio public universities, and four-year private colleges and 69

TABLE 3

Average Faculty Salaries

Salaries Salaries Per Cent of Institution (1973) (1976) Change

Wilberforce Professor $16,700 $17,800 6.6% Associate 14,200 15,700 10.6% Assistant 12,400 13,900 12.1% Instructor 10,700 11,500 7.5%

*0ther Developing Professor $18,400 $20,300 10.3% Assoclate 15,000 16,700 11.3% Assistant 12,700 13,700 7.9% Instructor 10,500 11,500 9.5%

Ohio Public Professor $23,627 $28,545 20.8% Associate 18,200 22,173 21.8% Assistant 15,200 18,500 21.7% Instructor 12,272 15,027 22.4%

National Four-Year Private Professor $15,960 $17,620 10.4% Associate 12,700 14,390 13.3% Assistant 10,890 12,330 13.2% Instructor 9,270 10,290 11.0%

Sources: "Hard Times: Report on the Economie Status of the Pro­ fession 1973-74," AAUP Bulletin (Summer, 1974), pp. 218­ 220.

Maryse Eymonerie, "No Progress this Year: Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 1976-77," AAUP Bulletin (August, 1977), pp. 56-58.

*Salaries based on averages for nine institutions. 70

universities. Associate professor salaries were comparable with other

developing institutions but lower than national increases. Salary

increases for assistant professors surpassed those at other developing

institutions and were comparable with national increases. Instructor

salary increases lagged behind increases at other developing institu­

tions and national increases. On the regional level, Ohio public uni­

versity faculty salary increases far exceed increases at Wilberforce at

all levels. With faculty salaries being much more attractive at Ohio

public universities, it becomes difficult for Wilberforce to compete

for faculty in Ohio at all levels.

Students front Low-Income Families

In Table 4, students from low-income families (income of $7,500 or

less) increased from eighty-two per cent to eighty-four per cent, a

2.38 per cent increase at Wilberforce between 1973 and 1976. At other

developing institutions, students from the same income bracket dropped

from sixty-five per cent to fifty-eight per cent, a 11.8 per cent

decrease. Wilberforce attracted students from the lowest income

bracket, while other developing institutions attracted students from

higher income brackets. Considering the rate of inflation, median

income for non-white families had increased from $7,596 in 1973 to $9,321 in 1975.3 Yet, the $7,500 criteria for low-income remained constant.

3Charles Anderson, ed., A Fact Book on Higher Education: Demo­ graphic and Economic Data (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Edu­ cation, 1977), p. 77.34. 71

TABLE 4

Per Cent of Students from Low-Income Families

Other Colleges and Developing Ohio Universities Wilberforce Inst itut ions Public Nationally Year University (Mean Value) Universities Four-Year Private

1973-74 82 65 *NA *NA

1976-77 84 58 *NA *NA

2.38% inc. -11.8%

Source: U.S. Office of Education, Qualification for Advanced Status Reports—1973-1976.

*NA indicates data were not available. 72

Data were not available for Ohio public universities and four-

year private colleges and universities nationally. However, some idea

about the number of low-income students attending colleges and universi­

ties can be observed from Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG)

recipients. BEOG awards are granted on the basis of need and FY 1974,

177,162 students received awards; FY 1976 BEOG recipients had increased to 1,268,000 which represents a 16.2 per cent increase in BEOG recipients.?

Therefore, more students from low-income families are attending college.

Total Educational and General Expenditures (E & G)

As reported in Table 5, educational and general expenditures at

Wilberforce increased from $3,983,672 to $6,427,937, a sixty-one per

cent increase between 1973 and 1976. Compared to a twenty-eight per

cent increase ($112,950,754 to $144,650,000) at other developing insti­

tutions; a forty-three per cent increase ($443,651,000 to $633,575,000)

at Ohio public universities; and a forty-six per cent increase

(3,272,774,000 to $4,782,026,000) at four-year private colleges and

universities nationally. Title III portion of E & G at Wilberforce in

1976 was $507,766.67 or 7.9 per cent. At other developing institutions,

it was $1,435,217 or 09.9 per cent. Compared to the other institutions, there was a substantial increase in E & G at Wilberforce even though there was not a substantial enrollment increase. Such an increase might have been attributed to a substantial increase in private gifts and grants flowing into the institution in 1975-76 (See Appendix D).

^Financial Aid Reports 1973-1976, Bureau of Financial Aid (Washing­ ton, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education). 73

TABLE 5

Total Educational and General (E & G) Expenditures

Colleges and Other Ohio Universities Wilberforce Developing Public Nationally Year University Institutions Universities Four-Year Private

1973 $3,983,672 $112,950,754 $443,651,000 $3,272,774,000

1976 6,427,937 144,650,000 633,575,000 4,782,026,000

61% inc. 28% inc. 43% inc. 46% inc.

Sources: Columns 1 and 2: U.S. Office of Education, Qualifica­ tion for Advanced Status Reports—1973-1976.

Columns 3 and 4: Paul F. Mertins and Norman J. Brandt, Financial Statistics of Institutions of Higher Educa­ tion FY 1973 and 1976, Washington, D.C.: National Cen­ ter for Education Statistics, 1978. 74

The Wilberforce campus was damaged by a tornado in April, 1974. After

the tornado, a large fund-raising drive was launched and more monies

flowed into the institution. Government grants increased also in 1975.

Unlike the other institutions compared, this disaster was probably

unique to Wilberforce. E & G expenditures at other developing institu­

tions are somewhat more in line with increases at Ohio public universi­

ties and four-year private colleges and universities nationally.

Educational and General Expenditures Per Full-Time Student

Table 6 indicates increases in E & G expenditures per full-time

student at Wilberforce by 51.9 per. cent ($3,823 to $5,807); compared to

15.2 per cent increase ($81,788 to $94,197) at other developing institu­

tions; 34.8 per cent increase ($2,013.38 to $2,715.72) at Ohio public universities; and 31.7 per cent increase ($2,331,085 to $3,069,876) at four-year colleges and universities nationally. Instruction accounted for the second largest expenditure at Wilberforce in 1976-77. Organ­ ized activities, libraries, student services, operation and maintenance of physical plant, general administration, development group, general institutional, and student aid accounted for other expenditures (See

Appendix D).

Library Volumes

Table 7 reflects an increase in the number of library volumes added at Wilberforce between 1973 and 1976 (49,428 to 54,275), a 9.8 per cent increase. At other developing institutions, library volumes decreased by 3.3 per cent (from 128,168.04 to 123,928.17). There was a decrease of .50 per cent at Ohio public universities (796,439.58 to 792,500.75). 75

TABLE 6

E & G Expenditures Per Full-Time Student

Colleges and Other Ohio Universities Wilberforce Developing Public Nationally Year University Institutions Universities Four-Year Private

1973 $3,823 $81,788 $2,013.38 $2,331,085

1976 5,807 94,197 2,715.72 3,069,876

51.9% inc. 15.2% inc. 34.8% inc. 31.7% inc.

Source: Divide enrollment by educational and general expendi­ tures; see Tables 1 and 5. 76

TABLE 7

Number of Volumes in the Library

Colleges and Other Ohio Universities Wilberforce Developing Public Nationally Year University Institutions Universities Four-Year Private

1973 49,428 2,947,865 9,557,275 48,042,570

1976 54,275 2,850,348 9,510,009 48,257,957

9.8% inc. -3.3% -.50% .45%

Source: Graduate School of Library Science, Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities, 1976 Institutional Data, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois. JJ

Also, there was a .45 per cent increase at four-year private colleges

and universities nationally (48,042,570 to 48,257,957).

Library acquisitions have probably slowed down as a result of

tightening budgets and growing emphasis on other forms of technology,

such as microforms and microfiche. Decreases in library volumes

could be a result of vandalism and theft or weeding out of old books.

Since library volumes at Wilberforce are lower than other developing

institutions, the need to increase library volumes was probably pressing.

Questionnaire Response

Thirty-two of.the fifty-nine questionnaires, were returned by respondents representing fifty-four and two-tenths per cent (54.2%) of the total population. However, three of the questionnaires were unusable. Therefore, the following data represent forty-nine and two-tenths per cent (49.2%) of the total population.

Seventy-nine and three-tenths per cent (79.3%) of the respondents are members of the faculty and twenty and seven-tenths per cent

(20.7%) are members of the administration. See Table 8. Per cents were calculated in order to enhance understanding of opinions about

Title III programs at Wilberforce. The questionnaire is presented in

Appendix C. 78

TABLE 8

Questionnaire Response Rate

Per Cent Staff Responding

Faculty 79.3

Administrators 20.7

Total 100.0

Importance of Title III Programs

Table 9 reflects opinions about the importance of Title III pro­

grams. The faculty and administration were asked to rate each of the

Title III programs on the following scale.

Very important—directed to the most important needs of the

institution

Important—directed to important needs, but others are just as

important

Fairly important—directed to important needs, but others are

more important

Not important—not directed to important needs

No opinion—don't really know enough about this program

In response to the twenty-five different types of Title III pro­ grams that were funded at Wilberforce, it is clear that most of the pro­ grams are addressing themselves to important needs of the institution as perceived by the respondents. Four Title III programs (First-Year Pro- TABLE 9

Opinions About the Importance of Title III Programs

Per Cent Responding

Very )Fairly Not No Title III Programs Important Important Important Important Opinion Total

First-Year Coordination 89.7 6.9 3.4 100 (includes 7 programs: Fresh Seminar, Fresh Composition, Reading Center, Thinking Skills, Basic Math, Fresh Counseling and Orientation)

Basic Math Improvement 82.8 10.3 3.4 3.4 100 (students acquire written com­ munications skills on a step- by-step basis)

Fresh Composition Improvement 86.2 10.3 - - 3.4 100

Improve and Expand Mass Media 24.1 20.7 27.6 6.9 17.2 96.6 (course offerings in journal­ ism, electronic media, photog­ raphy, and public relations)

>x> TABLE 9 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Important Important Important Important Opinion Total

Expand Management Program 17.2 37.9 20.7 3.4 17.2 96.6 (curriculum to include courses leading to areas of concentra­ tion in personnel, marketing, and general business manage­ ment)

Improve Teacher Education 24.1 37.9 10.3 17.2 6.9 96.6 (increase individualized instruction, determine stu­ dent readiness to assume para­ professional roles in field experience)

Audio-Visual Services 41.4 27.6 20.7 6.9 3.4 100 Development (availability of materials and equipment)

Learning Resources Center 48.3 20.7 20.7 3.4 3.4 96.6 Development (design of the facility)

Central State University Joint 6.9 20.7 34.5 10.3 24.1 96.6 Program (faculty exchangej joint meeting, major's develop­ ment, especially in Health Care oo Administration) o TABLE 9 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Important Important Important Important Opinion Total

Information Services Center 13.8 31.0 24.Î 6.9 17.2 93.1 (data output)

Recruiting for Special Career- 34.5 31.0 20.7 13.8 100 related Programs (Engineering, Mass Media Communications, Business Management)

Expand Career Planning 31.0 41.4 13.8 13.8 100 (assist the placement of graduates)

Expand Cooperative Education 37.9 31.0 24.1 6.9 100 (more opportunities for work experience related to career choices)

Dual-Degree Engineering Pro­ 41.1 27.6 17.2 13.8 100 gram (students study 3 years at Wilberforce University and 2 years at U. of Dayton)

AID Program Coordination 13.8 27.6 17.2 3.4 34.5 96.6

Planning, Research, Evalua­ 13.8 24.1 34.5 3.4 20.7 96.6 tion (planning, institutional oo research) TABLE 9 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Important Important Important Important Opinion Total

Basic Science Enhancement Pro­ 31.0 37.9 17.2 - 13.8 100 gram (improve the natural, physical and especially the life science program)

Establish Fresh Composition 65.5 24.1 6.9 — 3.4 100 Laboratory (to enhance Fresh Composition)

Competency-Based Instructional 44.8 27.1 13.8 6.9 6.9 100 Development (modules developed for selected courses)

Interdisciplinary Studies 10.3 24.1 34.5 6.9 24.1 100 (development of a synthesis course for seniors and an introductory program in the special sciences for students not majoring in Social Sciences)

Allied Health Program 31.0 13.8 31.0 10.3 13.8 100 (students pursue careers in pharmacy and medical technology)

Pre-Law Program 20.7 10.3 44.8 6.9 17.2 100 (add courses in the legal profession) TABLE 9 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Important Important Important Important Opinion Total

Faculty Tutorial Program 41.4 34.5 13.8 6.9 3.4 100 (tutoring in evening to reduce student attrition)

Management Information System 6.9 27.6 6.9 13.8 44.8 100 Development (continue to develop MIS, especially the Student Data Management sub-system)

Fund-Raising Training 13.8 6.9 17.2 10.3 48.3 100 (train interns to become mem­ bers of the Development Office staff)

oo 84

gram Coordination, Basic Mathematics Program Improvement, Freshman

Composition Program Improvement, and Establishment of Freshman Compo­

sition Laboratory) were rated very important and directed to the most

important needs of the institution by at least sixty per cent of the

respondents. In addition, eleven other programs were rated as very

important or important by more than half of the respondents. These

Title III programs are the Management Program, Teacher’-Education Pro­

gram, Audio-Visual Program, Learning Resource Center Development Pro­

gram, Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs, Career Planning,

Cooperative Education, Dual-Degree Engineering, Basic Science Enhance­

ment, Competency-Based Instruction, and the Faculty Tutorial Program.

The programs viewed as most important tend to be those which focus on

innovative and remedial approaches to learning, such as the First-Year

Program and those oriented toward expanding the curriculum via addi­

tional course offerings, such as Engineering and Management.

Reactions to such programs as the Central State University Joint

Program, Interdisciplinary Studies Program, the Pre-Law Program, and

Planning, Research, and Evaluation Activity seem to indicate less enthu­

siasm for the programs. With thirty-five per cent or more of the respondents rating these programs as fairly important, this could be viewed as indicating an order of priority the respondents to this ques­ tionnaire would set for Title III programs as Wilberforce.

Among' the programs that are less known about on campus are Manage­ ment Information System Development and Fund-Raising. Almost half of 85

the respondents rendered "no opinion" about these programs which could

be tied to ignorance about the programs and its purposes.

When relationship between involvement in program and opinion that

a program is very important was considered, most of the respondents with

program staff contact rated First-Year Coordination, Freshman Composi­

tion, and Freshman Composition Laboratory as very important. A similar

trend in rating of these programs was followed by persons with official,

informal, and even no contact. First-Year Coordination, Basic Math,

Freshman Composition, and Freshman Composition Laboratory were rated as

very important by a majority of the respondents. There .is consensus

about the importance of these programs. Program staff refers to those who are actively involved as part of the Title III program staff; off-i— cial contact indicates some interaction with the program in an official administrative or faculty position, but not part of program staff; and informal contact refers to informal consulting and exchange of ideas.

Also, no contact with a program was indicated. See Table 10.

Effectiveness of Title III Programs

Faculty and administrators were asked to rate the effectiveness of each program on the following scale:

Very effective—an excellent program, goal accomplishments

exceed expectations

Effective—a good program, expected goals are being accomplished

Fairly effective—some of the goals are being accomplished

Not effective—not any of the goals are being accomplished

No opinion—don’t know enough about this program 86

TABLE 10

Relationship Between Involvement in Program and Opinion that Program is Very Important

Program Official Informal No Program Staff Contact Contact Contact

First-Year 100% (4)* 100% (7) 75% (8) 67% (3) Coordination

Basic Math (0) 100% (6) 73% (11) 60% (5)

Fresh. Composition 100% (5) 100% (5) 75% (12) 67% (3)

Fresh. Composition 83% (6) 75% (4) 57% (7) 57% (7) Laboratory

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of cases on which percentages are based. 87

Also, they were asked to indicate why they felt the way they did

about the programs. Comments about why a program was rated as it was

are not provided because of few responses.

Table 11 presents the faculty and administrators’ responses to this

question. Seven of the programs which were perceived as important to

the institution were also rated as very effective, effective or at

least fairly effective with some of the goals being accomplished by at

least fifty per cent of the respondents. These programs are the First-

Year Program, Basic Mathematics, Freshman Composition, Audio-Visual,

Learning Resource Center, Freshman Composition Laboratory, and the

Faculty Tutorial Program. Only four programs (Mass Media Communications,

Dual-Degree Engineering, Competency-Based Instructional Program, and

the Interdisciplinary Studies Program) were rated as not effective by

ten per cent or more of the persons completing the questionnaires. How­ ever, over sixty per cent of the respondents gave "no opinion" about such programs as the Information Services Center, Recruiting for Special

Career-Related Programs, AID Program Coordination, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Activity, Basic Science Program, Allied Health Program,

Pre-Law Program, Management Information System, and Fund-Raising Program.

In Table 12, relationship between involvement in program and feel­ ing that program is effective is prsented. At least half or fifty per cent of the persons with program staff contact rated First-Year, Fresh­ man Composition, and Audio-Visual programs as effective. Only thirty- three per cent of these individuals rated the Faculty Tutorial Program as effective. First-Year, Freshman Composition, Audio-Visual, and TABLE 11

Perceptions of Effectiveness of Title III Programs

Per Cent Responding

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Effective Effective Effective Effective Opinion Total

First-Year Program Coordination 17.2 27.6 41.4 10.3 96.6 (includes 7 programs: Fresh. Seminar, Fresh. Composition, Reading Center, Thinking Skills, Supportive Skills, Basic Math, Fresh. Counseling, and Orien­ tation)

Basic Math Program Improvement 3.4 24.1 34.5 3.4 34.5 100 (students attain competency in basic math skills through com­ petency-based instruction)

Freshman Composition Program 10.3 41.4 27.6 3.4 17.2 100 Improvement (students acquire written communications skills on a step-by-step basis)

Improve and Expand Mass Media 6.9 10.3 20.7 10.3 48.3 96.6 Communications Program (course offerings in journalism, elec­ oo tronic media, photography, and oo public relations) TABLE 11 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Effective Effective Effective Effective Opinion Total

Expand Management Program 3.4 20.7 10.3 55.2 89.7 (curriculum to include courses leading to areas of concentration in personnel, marketing, and pro­ duction management and general business)

Improve Teacher Education Pro­ 6.9 17.2 10.3 3.4 51.7 89.7 gram (increase individualized instruction, determine student readiness to assume paraprofes­ sional roles in field experience)

Audio-Visual Services Development 10.3 34.5 34.5 6.9 13.8 100 (availability of materials and equipment)

Learning Resources Center Develop­ 13.8 13.8 31.0 6.9 27.6 93.1 ment (design of the facility)

Central State University Joint 6.9 10.3 27.6 55.2 100 Program (faculty exchange, joint meeting, major’s development, especially in Health Care Admin.)

Information Services Center 10.3 3.4 13.8 6.9 62.1 96.6 (data output) TABLE 11 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Effective Effective Effective Effective Opinion Total

Recruiting for Special Career- 3.4 10.3 10.3 3.4 69.0 96.6 Related Programs (Engineering, Mass Media Communications, Busi­ ness Management)

Expand Career Planning 3.4 6.9 20.7 3.4 58.6 93.1 (assist the placement of graduates)

Expand Cooperative Education 3.4 20.7 17.2 3.4 44.8 89.7 (more opportunities for work experience related to career choices)

Dual-Degree Engineering Program 6.9 17.2 10.3 20.7 41.4 96.6 (students study 3 years at Wilber­ force U. and 2 years at U. of Dayton)

AID Program Coordination 6.9 17.2 3.4 - 69.0 96.6

Planning, Research, and Evalua­ 17.2 13.8 3.4 - 62.1 96.6 tion Activity (institutional planning and research)

o TABLE 11 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Effective Effective Effective Effective Opinion Total

Basic Science Enhancement Pro­ 10.3 10.3 6.9 - 69.0 96.6 gram (improve the natural, physical, and especially the life science program)

Establish Freshman Composition 31.0 10.3 17.2 — 31.0 89.7 Laboratory (to enhance Fresh. Composition Program)

Competency-Based Instructional 13.8 20.7 10.3 17.2 34.5 96.6 Development Program (modules developed for selected courses)

Interdisciplinary Studies Pro­ 13.8 3.4 10.3 10.3 55.2 93.1 gram (development of a synthe­ sis course for seniors and an introductory program in the spe­ cial sciences for students not majoring in the Social Sciences)

Allied Health Program 3.4 6.9 10.3 6.9 69.0 96.6 (students pursue careers in pharmacy and medical technology)

Pre-Law Program 10.3 13.8 10.3 62.1 100 (add courses in the legal profession) TABLE 11 (continued)

Very Fairly Not No Title III Programs Effective Effective Effective Effective Opinion Total

Faculty Tutorial Program 6.9 24.1 27.6 6.9 34.5 100 (tutoring in evening to reduce student attrition)

Management Information System 10.3 6.9 6.9 6.9 65.6 96.6 Development Program (continue to develop MIS, especially the Student Data Management Sub- System)

Fund-Raising Training 3.4 6.9 3.4 3.4 75.9 93.1 (train interns to become mem­ bers of the Development Office staff) 93

TABLE 12

Relationship Between Involvement in Program and Feeling that Program is Effective (Excluding those who had No Opinion)

Per Cent Responding

Program Official Informal No Program Staff Contact Contact Contact

First-Year 50% (4)* 14% (7) 25% (8) 67% (3)

Basic Math (0) 17% (6) 27% (11) 40% (5)

Fresh. Composition 60% (5) 60% (5) 33% (12) 33% (3)

Audio-Visual 67% (3) 50% (2) 44% (16) 0% (3)

Learning Resource 0% (4) 0% (4) 18% (11) 33% (6) Center

Fresh. Composition 0% (6) 25% (4) 29% (7) 14% (7) Laboratory

Faculty Tutorial 33% (3) 60% (5) 22% (9) 25% (4)

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of cases on which percentages are based. 94

Faculty Tutorial programs were rated as effective by sixty per cent or

more of those persons with official contact. Also, a substantial num­

ber of those persons with informal and no contact tended to rate these

programs as effective. The Basic Math Program, Learning Resources Cen­

ter, and Freshman Composition Laboratory programs were rated as effec­

tive mostly by those with informal and no contact.

Question 3 dealt with opinions about whether or not Title III pro­

grams would be more effective if additional monies were available to

support them. Responses to this question are presented in Table 13.

It was anticipated that everybody would say a program needed more money

asdid happen..- However, some programs were perceived by fifty per cent

or more of the respondents as needing more monies than others.

Most people (65.5 per cent) felt that the Freshman Composition

Program needed more monies. The First-Year Program Coordination, Basic

Math Program, Audio-Visual Services, and Learning Resources Center

Development were also perceived as needing more monies in order to be effective.

The Basic Math Program is the only one of the five programs per­ ceived as needing more monies among the highest funded Title III Programs

It is also interesting to note that programs such as Mass Media Communi­ cations, Competency-Based Instructional Development, and Interdisci­ plinary Studies Programs which had been considered not effective earlier did not receive top priority in terms of needing additional monies in order to become effective. The Mass Media Communications Program is the 95

TABLE 13

Opinions Expressed by Respondents About Additional Monies Needed For Title III Programs To Be More Effective

Per Cent Programs Responding

Fresh. Composition Improvement 65.1 Basic Math Improvement 58.6 First-Year Coordination 55.2 Learning Resources Center Dev. 55.2 Audio-Visual Services Dev. 51.7 Management Info. Systems Dev. 51.7 Improve Mass Media Communications 48.3 Competency-Based Instructional Dev. 48.3 Interdisciplinary Studies 41.4 Allied Health 37.9 Faculty Tutorial 37.9 Improve Teacher Education 34.5 AID Coordination 34.5 Fund-Raising Training 34.5 Info. Services Center 31.0 Recruiting for Special Careers 31.0 Establish Fresh. Composition Lab 31.0 Pre-Law Program 31.0 Dual-Degree Engineering 27.6 Basic Science Enhancement 27.6 Expand Career Planning 24.1 Expand Cooperative Education 24.1 Expand Management Program 20.7 Central State U. Joint Program 20.7 Planning, Research, Evaluation 13.8 96

only one of those programs receiving top- funding of $200rGG0 or more.

See Appendix E for funding level of programs.

Question 4 dealt with whether Title III programs have had any

effect on an individual’s work In general. Results indicate that

44.8 per cent of the respondents have had contact with more students.

According to 34.5 per cent of the respondents, their work load has

increased; 27.6 per cent changed some ideas about how to do their work;

17.2 per cent have contact with more colleagues external to Wilberforce

University.

Responses to Question 5 must be viewed with caution. Seventeen or

fifty-nine per cent of the twenty-nine respondents did not indicate some

of the important needs of the institution that were omitted by Title III

funding. Four of the twelve persons who responded to the question

listed the need for faculty-related programs, such as staff develop­

ment, more teachers, and better faculty salaries. Two persons listed

the need for student housing. Increased counseling services for stu­

dents was indicated by two persons. Four individual responses indi­

cated the need for library personnel and resources; facilities for ath­

letic programs; student loan collection program; and a forensic program.

See Table 14.

Question 6 must also be viewed with caution. Twenty-three or

seventy-nine per cent of the persons completing the questionnaire did not indicate what ways Title III affected the decision-making process at the University. Three of the six persons who commented on this ques­ tion said Title III had improved the decision-making process by making 97

TABLE 14

Important Needs of the Institution Not Funded by Title III

Number Needs Responding

Staff development, more teachers, 4 better faculty salaries

Student housing 2

More counseling services 2

Library personnel and resources 1

Athletic programs 1

Student loan collection program 1

Forensic program 1

Total 12 98

administrators more aware of the need for- effective management skills.

Three others commented it assisted in the development of a financial

information system which-provides-timely reports of fiscal information;

it de-emphasized major programs which is not good; and it created the

risk of separate program reporting channel independent of the divisions.

See Table 15.

With Question 7, 58.6 per cent of the respondents did not respond

to whether or not Title III program research and evaluation procedures

and instruments have had a significant impact on non-Title III funded

programs. As with Question 6, faculty members probably don’t know the

difference between Title III programs procedures and any other procedure.

However, thirty-one per cent responded yes and 10.3 per cent responded

no. See Table 16.

TABLE 16

Has Title III Research and Evaluation Procedures and Instruments Had Impact on Non-Title III Programs?

Per Cent Response Responding

Yes 31%

No 10.3%

Total 43%

Additional comments on the impact of Title III at Wilberforce Uni­ versity indicated that Title III has provided resources which have 99

TABLE 15

Ways Title III Affected Decision-Making Process

Number Ways Responding

Administrators more aware of need 3 for effective management skills

Timely reports of fiscal informa- 1 tion provided

De-emphasized major programs 1

Created separate program reporting 1 channel independent of divisions _

Total 6 100

enabled the university to do some things it normally would not have done

and it would be hard to maintain programs without these funds.

Table 17 reflects the kind of contact faculty and administrators

have had with each of the Title III programs. Program-staff refers to

those who are actively involved as part of the Title III program staff;

official contact indicates some interaction with the program in an offi­

cial, administrative or faculty position, but not part of program staff;

and informal contact refers to informal consulting and exchange of ideas,

No contact with a program was indicated.

Fifty per cent or-more of the-respondents had either program-staff,

official, or informal contact with the First-Year, Basic Math, Freshman

Composition, Audio-Visual, Learning Resources Center, Freshman Composi­

tion Laboratory, Competency-Based Instruction, Faculty Tutorial Pro­

grams. However, no contact was indicated for most of the programs by

thirty per cent or more of the people responding.

Finally, thirty-one per cent of the respondents had been working at

the university one to three years; 17.2 per cent four to six years;

24.1 per cent seven to ten years; and 27.6 per cent more than ten years. Since forty-eight per cent of the respondents had been working at Wilberforce University less than six years, this might account for their lack of knowledge about many of the programs. TABLE 17

Kind of Contact with Each Program

Title III Program Official Informal No No Programs Staff Contact Contact Contact Response

First-Year Prog. Coordination 13.8 24.1 27.6 10.3 24.1

Basic Math Prog. Improvement 0 20.7 37.9 17.2 24.1

Fresh. Composition Improvement 17.2 17.2 41.4 10.3 13.8

Improve and Expand Mass Media 3.4 24.1 13.8 31.0 27.6 Communications

Expand Management Program 0 6.9 13.8 48.3 31.0

Improve Teacher Education 13.8 13.8 24.1 27.6 20.7

Audio-Visual Services 10.3 6.9 . 55.2 10.3 17.2 Development

Learning Resources Center 13.8 13.8 37.9 20.7 13.8 Development

Central State University 6.9 6.9 27.6 31.1 27.6 Joint Program

Information Services Center 0 6.9 17.2 48.3 27.6 T O T TABLE 17 (continued)

Title III Program Official Informal No No Programs Staff Contact Contact Contact Response

Recruiting for Special Career- 0 20.7 17.2 41.4 20.7 Related Programs

Expand Career Planning 3.4 17.2 10.3 37.9 31.0

Expand Cooperative Education 0 20.7 20.7 31.0 27.6

Dual-Degree Engineering 10.3 3.4 24.1 37.9 24.1

AID Coordination 3.4 6.9 17.2 34:5 37.9

Planning, Research, Evaluation 3.4 17.2 20.7 24:1 34.5

Basic Science Enhancement 10.3 10.3 20.7 27:6 31.0

Establish Fresh. Composition 20.7 13.8 24.1 24.1 17.2 Laboratory

Competency-Based Instructional 27.6 20.7 13.8 13.8 24.1 Development

Interdisciplinary Studies 0 17.2 27.6 24.1 31.0

Allied Health Program 3.4 10.3 20.7 31.0 34.5

Faculty Tutorial Program 10.3 17.2 31.0 13.8 27.6 1 0 2 TABLE 17 (continued)

Title III Program Official Informal No No Programs Staff Contact Contact Contact Response

Management Information System 6.9 3.4 17.2 44.8 27.6 Development

Fund-Raising Training 3.4 3.4 6.9 51.7 34.5

Pre-Law Program 6.9 10.3 20.7 37.9 24.1 1 0 3 CHAPTER V

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings, to draw

conclusions, and to make recommendations regarding the Title III pro­

gram.

Summary of Findings

The findings of this study stemmed from government and other docu­

ments regarding institutional characteristics and from questionnaires

received from faculty and key administrative personnel at Wilberforce

University.

The data gathered concerned questions about Wilberforce University's

commitment to Title III grants received, Wilberforce University’s develop

ment experience while participating in Title III and a comparison of

that experience relative to other Title III participating or develop­

ing institutions, and questions about success and importance of Title III

participation at Wilberforce as perceived by faculty and key administra­

tive personnel. A summary of findings regarding each question are pre­

sented separately in this chapter.

Question 1: Did Wilberforce University do what they committed

themselves to doing by the several Title III grants received?

An analysis of commitments made by Wilberforce via acceptance of

Title III grants and a review of evaluation reports on Title III pro­

grams at Wilberforce submitted to the U.S. Office of Education by Wilber­

force and external consultants as of July, 1978, revealed the following commentary on each Title III program:

104 105

First-Year Program Coordination

Most, if not all, commitments to this program have been implemented.

A director was hired to coordinate the program, freshmen have been

tested and their performance levels in reading, writing, and math are

reported to have increased. Faculty opinion about the program was sur­

veyed and found to be positive. Evaluation reports indicated the pro­

gram has improved the ability of students to successfully cope with upper

level academic courses.

Basic Math Program Improvement

Most, if not all, commitments to this program have been implemented.

Competency-based modules in math have been developed, students are

assigned to the math laboratory, and students have been tested. Progress reports by Wilberforce indicate that sixty per cent of the students develop prerequisite math skills and exit from the program.

Freshman Composition Program Improvement and Freshman Laboratory

Some commitments to this program have been implemented. Freshman

Composition courses are available to strengthen student’s communication skills on a modular basis, and students are assigned to the writing lab.

Unlike the Basic Math Program, measures of student progress were not reported.

Improve and Expand Mass Media Communications Program

Commitments to revise the curriculum in print and broadcast jour­ nalism and in photography have been kept. Also, a radio station is being developed. The number of students that have graduated in mass media was 106

not provided, neither was there an indication of a reduction in upper-

level student transfers.

Expansion of Management Program

The University has not followed through on commitments to this pro­

gram. New courses in personnel, marketing, production and general

business management have not been added to the curriculum.

Improve Teacher Education

The University has not followed through on commitments to this

program. The Language Arts Center is not functioning as planned and .an

assessment design for prescribing proficiencies in oral expression has

not been completed.

Audio-Visual Services Development

Most, if not all, commitments to this program have been implemented.

A director was hired, equipment was purchased, and the A-V services were moved to a new facility. Faculty satisfaction has been documented.

Learning Resources Center Development

Commitments to this program have been implemented. The Center was completed, a director was hired, library and other facilities were housed, and space assignments were made. Learning resources are avail­ able for students and faculty.

Joint Programs with Central State University

Some commitments to this program have been actualized. The stu­ dent exchange program has begun, and joint program possibilities have been explored. The faculty exchange program never developed. 107

Management Information System and Information Services

Some commitments to this program have been implemented. Accord­

ing to reports, information for management is being produced on a timely

basis. What is happening with the student data sub-system and evalua­

tion reports was not indicated.

Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs

The University has followed through with commitments to this pro­

gram. Students were recruited and admitted to engineering, mass media

communications, and business management programs. However, recruitment

goals have not been met (seventy-five students were.not admitted in

1975).

Expand Career Planning

Attempts have been made to carry out commitments to this program.

A director was hired; seniors are being offered higher salaries accord­

ing to the director's report. Students were counseled and placement

support was offered to previous graduates. Comparative data were not

provided on salaries of senior graduates—past and present.

Expand Cooperative Education

Reports indicate cooperative education has been expanded—the variety of co-op jobs have been increased, job-site counseling and sup­ port has been provided on a more frequent basis, and ninety-five per cent of graduating students had co-ops in their fields.

Dual Degree Engineering Program

The University has been following through on some of the commit­ ments to this program. New students were enrolled in the program, but 108

not the expected amount. Motivation to pursue an engineering career is

apparent because students continue to enroll in the program. There was

no data provided showing that students are better prepared.

AID Coordination

An individual was designated to coordinate the Title III program.

Programs have been staffed, and full responsibility for the program has

been given to the coordinator.

Planning, Research, and Evaluation

Some commitments to this .program have been implemented. The Uni­

versity Five-Year Plan has been revised and evaluation of post-graduate

performance has been attempted-. Evaluation of freshmen, coordination^

of proposal efforts, measure of cost and progress of AID programs, and

monitoring and evaluation information results were not reported.

Basic Science Enhancement Program

The University has followed through with most, if not all, commit­

ments to this program. The life science course was converted to a modu­

lar instructional model. In physical and natural science courses, audio­

visual materials are used to augment the traditional lecture-lab approach

In a pre-test/pOst-test comparison of scores on alternate forms of a

life science test, it was reported that the mean score for all students

increased by twenty points. No other information about the testing was

reported.

Competency-Based Instruction Development Program

Attempts to follow through on commitments to this program have been made. Two courses have been developed, three faculty members were pro- 109

vided opportunities to develop new teaching strategies, and two sets of

modules have already been tested. Three sets of modules are expected

to be developed each year.

Interdisciplinary Studies Program

The University has followed through with commitments to this program.

A professor was hired, and a senior synthesis course was developed and

added to the curriculum. Students’ performance and results from course

evaluations indicate the program is successful.

Allied Health Program

Commitments to this program have been actualized. A director was

hired, courses in human anatomy, histology,, micro-biology, and bacteri­

ology were added to the curriculum. Students progress was reported to have been measured, but results were not reported.

Faculty Tutorial Program

This program was launched. Faculty tutors and upper-class students were selected to tutor students. The service has been evaluated, and satisfaction with the program was reported by the University.

Pre-Law Program

Some commitments to this program have been acted upon. Four new courses were added to the curriculum, and a director was hired. Intern­ ships were not set up for students.

Wilberforce University has done many of the things it was committed to doing via acceptance of Title III monies. The Teacher Education

Improvement Program and the Management Program are the only two pro­ grams which have not been implemented. Other programs have been launched 110

and appear to be meeting with some success. It is difficult for the

researcher to respond to Question 1 with a yes or no answer, because

specific measures of program accomplishments were not provided for many

of the Title III programs. However, Wilberforce University seems to be

following through on commitments to the First-Year Coordination, Basic

Math, Audio-Visual Services, Learning Resources Center Development,

Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs, AID Coordination, Basic

Science Enhancement, Interdisciplinary Studies, Allied Health, Pre-Law,

and Faculty Tutorial programs. Some commitments, but not all, have

been acted upon with the Freshman Composition Program, Mass Media Com­

munications, Central State University Joint Program, Management Informa­

tion System and Information Services, Cooperative Education, Career

Planning, and Competency-Based Instruction programs.

Question 2: Did Wilberforce University experience development by

the several development Title III criteria over the time of Title III

participation, and what was the development experience relative to other

Title III participating or developing institutions, and to other insti­

tutions, regionally and nationally?

Each development area is presented separately along with compari­

sons to other institutions for 1973-74 and 1976-77.

Enrollment

Between fall 1973 and 1976, full-time enrollment at Wilberforce

University increased from 1,042 to 1,107 students, a 6.24 per cent enrollment increase. Comparisons to other developing institutions reflect an enrollment increase from 29,252 to 34,174, a 16.8 per cent increase; Ill

compared to Ohio public universities enrollment from 220,351 to 233,299,

a 5.88 per cent increase; and compared to four-year private colleges

and universities nationally enrollment increased from 1,403,970 to

1,557,726, a 10.95 per cent increase (Table 1, p. 64).

Enrollment trends at Wilberforce University were more in line with

enrollment increases at Ohio public universities, than other developing

institutions or national enrollment trends for four-year private colleges

and universities.

Faculty with Doctorates

As evidenced in Table 2, p. 67, Wilberforce University did not

increase the number of faculty or staff with-doctorates between 1973 and

1976. The number remained at forty per cent. Compared to other develop­

ing institutions, a 10.4 per cent increase occurred (41.2 to 45.5); and at Ohio public universities, the number of faculty with doctorates increased from 47.1 to 50.3, a 6.8 per cent increase. Data were not available for four-year private colleges and universities nationally.

Wilberforce did not make headway in attracting faculty with doctorates.

Competition with Ohio public universities was probably a factor as well as the location of Wilberforce University, which is isolated.

Faculty Salaries

Between 1973 and 1976, faculty salaries at Wilberforce for profes­ sors, associate and assistant professors, and instructors increased from $16,700 to $17,800, a 6.6 per cent increase; $14,200 to $15,700, a

10.6 per cent increase; $12,400 to $13,900, a 12.1 per cent increase; and $10,700 to $11,500, a 7.5 per cent increase, respectively. Com- 112

pared to other developing institutions, faculty salaries increased at

all levels also: professor salaries increased from $18,400 to $20,300

(10.3 per cent); associate and assistant professor salaries increased

from $15,000 to $16,700 (11.3 per cent) and from $12,700 to $13,700

(7.9 percent); and instructor salaries increased from $10,500 to $11,500

(9.5 per cent). Salaries at Ohio public universities increased at all

levels from $23,627 to $28,545, a 20.8 per cent increase; $18,200 to

$22,173, a 21.8 per cent increase; from $15,200 to $18,500, a 21.7 per

cent increase; and from $12,272 to $15,027, a 22.4 per cent increase for

professors, associate and assistant professors, and instructors respec­

tively. Faculty salaries increased at four-year private colleges and universities nationally for professors ($15,960 to $17,620, a 10.4 per cent increase); for associate professors ($12,700 to $14,390, a

13.3 per cent increase); for assistant professors ($10,890 to $12,330, a 13.2 per cent increase); and for instructors ($9,270 to $10,290, a

11.0 per cent increase). See Table 3, p. 69.

Compared to other developing institutions, instructor and assistant professor salaries were similar at Wilberforce. Salaries for professors and associate professors were higher at other developing institutions.

At all levels, salaries at Wilberforce and other developing institu­ tions were higher than salaries for four-year private colleges and uni­ versities nationally. Salaries at Ohio public universities were much higher than all of the institutions compared. 113

Students from Low-Income Families

Students from low-income families (income of $7,500 or less)

increased from eighty-two to eighty-four, a 2.38 per cent increase at

Wilberforce between 1973 and 1976. At other developing institutions,

students from the same income bracket dropped from sixty-five to fifty-

eight, a 11.8 per cent decrease. Wilberforce attracted students from

the lowest income brackets, while other developing institutions

attracted students from higher income brackets (Table 4, p. 71).

Total Educational and General Expenditures (E & G)

Educational and general expenditures at Wilberforce increased from.

$3,983,672 to $6,427,937, a sixty-one .per cent increase between 1973 and -

1976. Compared to a twenty-eight per cent increase ($112,950,754 to

$144,650,000) at other developing institutions; a forty-three per cent increase ($443,651,000 to $633,575,000) at Ohio public universities; and a forty-six per cent increase ($3,272,774,000 to $4,782,026,000) at four- year private colleges and universities nationally (Table 5, p. 73).

Compared to other institutions in this study, there was a substan­ tial increase in E & G at Wilberforce. Increases in E & G at other develop ing institutions were lower than increases at Ohio public universities and private colleges and universities, but more in line with these insti­ tutions. E & G expenditures were less than those at other developing institutions in 1973 at Wilberforce, and the substantial increase helped Wilberforce to catch up with other developing institutions and surpass them. 114

Educational and General Expenditures Per Full-Time Student

E & G expenditures per full-time student at Wilberforce increased

by 51.9 per cent ($3,823 to $5^807); compared to 15.2 per cent increase

($81,788 to $94,197) at other developing institutions; 34.8 per cent

increase ($2,013.38 to $2,715.72) at Ohio public universities; and 31.7

per cent increase ($2,311,085 to $3,069,876) at four-year colleges and

universities nationally (Table 6, p. 75).

Wilberforce and other developing institutions spent more money

per student than Ohio public universities and four-year private colleges

and universities nationally. A large portion (42.6 per cent) of E & G

expenditures were for student aid at Wilberforce.

Library Volumes

Table 7, p. 76, reflects an increase in the number of library volumes added at Wilberforce between 1973 and 1976 (49,428 to 54,275), a 9.8 per cent increase. At other developing institutions, library volumes decreased by 3.3 per cent (from 128,168.04 to 123,928.17).

There was a decrease of .50 per cent at Ohio public universities

(796,439.58 to 792,500.75). Also, there was a .45 per cent increase at four-year private colleges and universities nationally (48,042,570 to

48,257,957.

While the purchase of library volumes have stood still or decreased,

Wilberforce increased its volumes probably because they had fewer volumes than other developing institutions. 115

Question 3: What do faculty and key administrative personnel at

Wilberforce believe about the success and importance of Title III par­

ticipation at Wilberforce as reported by their responses on a question­

naire?

Beliefs about success and importance of Title III participation

at Wilberforce are revealed by forty-nine and two-tenths per cent

(49.2%) of faculty and administrators at Wilberforce. Seventy-nine

and three-tenths per cent (79.3%) of the respondents were faculty and

twenty and seven-tenths per cent (20.7%) were key administrative per­

sonnel .

Sixty per cent (60%) of the respondents rated the First-Year Pro­

gram, Basic Math, Freshman Composition, and Freshman Composition

Laboratory as very important programs. Other programs rated as impor­

tant were Management, Teacher Education, Audio-Visual Services, Learn­

ing Resources Center Development, Recruiting for Special Career-

Related Programs, Cooperative Education, Dual Degree Engineering, Basic

Science, Competency-Based Instruction, and the Faculty Tutorial programs.

The Central State Program, Interdisciplinary Studies, Pre-Law, and Planning,

Research, and Evaluation programs were rated as fairly important (Table 9,

p. 79).

At least fifty per cent of the respondents rated the First-Year

Coordination, Basic Math, Freshman Composition, Audio-Visual Services,

Learning Resources Center, Freshman Composition Laboratory, and Faculty

Tutorial programs as effective with some of the goals being accomplished

(Table 11, p. 88). As evidenced in Table 12, p. 93, half of the indi- 116

viduals with program staff contact rated First-Year Coordination, Fresh

man Composition, and Audio-Visual Services programs as effective. Most

of the respondents with official contact rated First-Year Coordination,

Freshman Composition, Audio-Visual, and Faculty Tutorial programs as

effective. Those with informal and no contact rated these programs as

effective. Persons with informal contact or no contact rated Basic

Math, Learning Resources Center, and Freshman Composition Laboratory

programs as effective.

Programs viewed by respondents as needing more monies in order to be more effective were First-Year Coordination, Basic Math, Audio­

Visual, and Learning Resources Center (Table 13, p. 95).

Most of the respondents had some kind of contact with the First-

Year Coordination, Basic Math, Freshman Composition, Audio-Visual,

Learning Resources Center, Freshman Composition Laboratory, Competency-

Based Instruction, and Faculty Tutorial programs. No contact was indi­ cated with most of the programs (Table 17, p. 101).

Conclusions

As a result of this study, it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

1. To a considerable degree, Wilberforce University has done

what they committed themselves to doing by the several 1

Title III grants received. The majority of Title III programs

have been implemented and some commitments have been kept. 117

2. Wilberforce University did experience development by most of

the Title III development criteria. There were trends toward

increases in enrollment, faculty salaries, increases in stu­

dents from low-income families, educational and general

expenditures, educational and general expenditures per stu­

dent, and increases in the number of library volumes.

Development experienced at Wilberforce relative to other

colleges and universities showed that enrollment trends at

Wilberforce University were more similar to those at Ohio

public universities than other Title III participating insti­

tutions or four-year private colleges and universities

nationally; faculty salaries at Wilberforce were competitive

with other Title III participating institutions for instruc­

tors and assistant professors, and faculty salaries were

higher at Wilberforce and other Title III participating

institutions than those at four-year private colleges and

universities nationally; educational and general expendi­

tures at Wilberforce increased much greater than other

institutions compared; and educational and general expendi­

tures per student were in line with other Title III partici­

pating institutions and higher than E & G expenditures at

Ohio public universities and four-year private colleges and

universities nationally.

3. Faculty and key administrative personnel at Wilberforce believe

that most of the Title III programs are important; that First- 118

Year Coordination, Basic Math, Freshman Composition, Audio­

Visual Services, Learning Resources Center Development,

Freshman Composition Laboratory, and Faculty Tutorial pro­

grams are successful; and they believe First-Year Coordination,,

Basic Math, Audio-Visual Services, and Learning Resources

Center programs could be even more successful if additional

monies were made available to support them.

4. Wilberforce University remains committed to educating stu­

dents from low socio-economic backgrounds. A large portion

of their educational and general expenditures were designated

to meet the needs of low-income students.

5. Student-oriented programs are given a higher priority at

Wilberforce than management related activities.

6. Many faculty members at Wilberforce are not aware of the

various Title III programs. The large number of "no con­

tact" and "no opinion" ratings regarding Title III programs

support this conclusion.

7. As found in the literature, Title III monies have impacted

on Wilberforce University. Supportive academic and admini­

strative personnel have been added to the staff, the cur­

riculum has been expanded, and the financial situation at

Wilberforce has improved.

8. Wilberforce University is in a better position to train

minority students for non-traditional careers as a result of

Title III funding. 119

Re c ommenda t ion s

The following recommendations are being made regarding the Title III

Strengthening Developing Institutions Program:

1. That faculty, administrators, and students be directly

involved in the planning, implementation, and evalua­

tion of Title III programs. The whole institution

stands to benefit from a participatory management

approach. With faculty, administrators, and stu­

dents working toward the same goals, the institution

is likely to become strengthened, which of course is

the thrust of Title III.

2. That more detailed evaluations of the Title III pro­

gram occur and that these evaluations are reported

in measurable terms. Since there is disagreement in

the literature about which indicators of institutional

development are more reliable, Title III evaluations

should be comprehensive. Fiscal affairs, student

involvement and feelings about programs, faculty

attitudes about programs and the institution in

general, leadership qualities, and such character­

istics as enrollment patterns, staff qualifications,

total income, and student expenditures should all be

measured.

3. That developing institutions continue to educate a

large portion of students from low socio-economic 120

backgrounds. Based on the literature, it is clear that

Title III funds were intended to support institutions

which took affirmative actions to educate students from

low socio-economic backgrounds.

4. That the federal government continue to provide Title III

funds to developing institutions. As indicated in the

literature, most developing institutions were struggl­

ing for survival when they began receiving Title III

funds. Since these institutions were near collapse,

they will need Title III monies for many years to come in

order to remain viable, if not to become so called

"developed."

5. That increases or decreases in Title III funds going to

developing institutions be determined by progress at

each institution and not based on global assessments

of the Title III program. Afterall, colleges and uni­

versities in America are quite diverse and their unique­

ness should be encouraged and rewarded.

6. That the U.S. Office of Education play an active role

in monitoring Title III activities. This can only be

done if commitments are made to provide the Title III

office with enough competent staff to go out into the

field and monitor these programs. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bowles, Frank, and Frank Decosta. Between Two Worlds: A:Profile of Negro Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.

Brown, Frank, and Madelon D. Stend. Minorities in U.S. Institutions of Higher Education. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. From Isolation to Mainstream. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. The Federal Role in Postsecondary Education-Unfinished Business 1975-80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.

Carnegie;Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. More Than Sur­ vival; Prospects forHigher Education in a Period of Uncertainty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.

Chambers, M. M. Financing Higher Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963.

Howard, Lawrence C. The Developing Colleges Program: A Study of Title III Higher Education Act of 1965. Wisconsin: Institute of Human Relations, The University of Wisconsin, 1967.

Jellema, William W. From Red to Black: The Financial Status of Private Colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

______. Higher Education Finance: A Comparative Study of Matched Sam­ ples of Black and White Institutions. Georgia: Southern Regional Board, 1972.

Jencks, Christopher, and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1968.

McGrath, Earl J. The Predominantly Negro Colleges and Universities in Transition. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965.

Pfnister, Allan 0. Planning for Higher Education. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., 1976.

Pifer, Alan. The Higher Education of Blacks in The United States. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1973.

Thompson, Daniel C. Private Colleges at the Crossroads. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1973.

122 123

Willie, Charles V., and Ronald Edmonds, eds. Black Colleges in America: Challenge, Development, Survival. New York: Teachers College Press, 1978.

Periodicals

Eymonerie, Maryse. "No Progress this Year: Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 1976-77." AAUP Bulletin (August, 1977), 56-58.

"Funds for Higher Education Department Budget." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 (February, 1980), 14-15.

Gerber, David A. "Segregation, Separatism and Sectarianism: Ohio Blacks . and Wilberforce University’s Effort to Obtain Federal Funds, 1891." Journal of Negro Education, 45 (Winter, 1976), 1-20.

"Hard Times: Report on the Economic--Status of the Profession 1973-74." AAUP Bulletin- (Summer, 1974) , -218-220.

Lockett, Arnold, and Edward Simpkins. "Black Colleges: An Endangered Foundation." Phi Delta Kappan, 59 - (April ,-1977)., 116-117.

Middleton, Lorenzo. "Enrollment of Blacks Doubled Since 1970." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 (January, 1979), 2.

______. "Financial Aid to Developing Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 (January, 1979), 4.

Scully, Malcolm G. "Carnegie Panel Says Enrollment Decline will Create a New Academic Revolution." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 (January, 1980), 11.

"The Black College and the New Black Awareness." Daedalus (Summer, 1971), 573-602.

Winn, Ira J. "Turning the Screw: Higher Education in the 1980’s and 1990’s." Phi Delta Kappan (June, 1980), 686-688.

Government Documents and Other Reports

Advisory Council on Developing Institutions: 1977 Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1978.

Anderson, Charles, ed. A Fact Book on Higher Education 1955-77. Washington, D.C. : American Council on Education, 1977.

Basic Title III Program Document Wilberforce University 1966-74. Wilberforce, Ohio. 124

Bell, T. H. The Federal Role in Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 095 798, 1974.

Cobb, Henry E. Report on an Examination of the Developing Institutions Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare/Office of Education, 1977.

Evaluation Reports on the Advanced Institutional Development Program for Wilberforce University. U.S. Office of Education.

Federal Interagency Committee on Education. Federal Agencies and Black Colleges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971.

Financial Aid Reports 1973-1976. Bureau of Financial Aid. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Health, Education, and-Welfare.

Frankel, Martin M., ed. Projections of Education Statistics to 1986-87. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1977.

FR Doc. 40, §169.21 (1975).

FR Doc. 40, §169.31 (1975).

FR Doc. 40, §169.1 (1979).

Graduate School Library Science. Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities, 1976 Institutional Data. Urbana, Illinois: Univer­ sity of Illinois.

Grant Application for AIDP - Wilberforce University 1974 and Supplemen­ tal Grant, 1975. U.S. Office of Education.

Grant, W. Vance, and C. George Lind. Digest of Education Statistics 1977-78. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statis­ tics, 1978.

Halstead, D. K. Higher Education Prices and Price Indexes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1975.

Harris, Seymour E. A Statistical Portrait of Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company (1972), 926-927.

Higher Education Act of 1965, §101 (a), 79 Stat. 1219 (1965), 20 U.S.C. §1001 (a) 1978. 125

Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title Ill-Strengthening Developing Insti­ tutions) , §301 (a), 79 Stat. 1229 (1965), 20 U.S.C. §1051-1055 (a) 1978.

Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title IIT-Strengthening Developing Insti­ tutions), §301 (a), 86 Stat. 243 (1972), 20 U.S.C. §1054 (b) 1978.

Hodgkinson, Harold L., and Walter Schenkel. A Study of Title III of the Higher Education Act: The Developing Institutions Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 088 316, 1974.

Jacobs, Frederic, and Tyler Tingley. The Evaluation of -Eligibility Cri­ teria for Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1975. Washing­ ton D.C.: U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Docu­ ment ED 148 242, 1977.

Johnson, Lyndon B. "Toward Full Educational Opportunity." Speech to the 89th Congress. Texas: Lyndon B. Johnson Library, 1965. (Mimeographed.)

Mertins, Paul F., and-Norman J. Brandt. Financial Statistics of Insti­ tutions of Higher Education FY 1973 and 1976. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1978.

Miller, James L. Jr., Gerald Gurin, and Mary Jo Clark. Use and Effec­ tiveness of Title III in Selected ’Developing Institutions.’ Wash­ ington, D.C.: U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 035 105, 1970.

Ohio Board of Regents. Ohio Basic Data Series, Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio, 1979.

Pepin, Andrew J. Fall Enrollment in Higher Education 1976. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1978.

President’s Annual Reports to the Board of Trustees, 1974 and 1976. Wilberforce University, Ohio, 1979.

Rivlin, Alice M. Toward A Long-Range Plan for Federal Financial Sup­ port for Higher Education. A Preliminary Report to the President- Interagency Task Force on Admin, of Academic Science Research Pro­ gram. Texas: Lyndon B. Johnson Library, 1965. (Mimeographed.)

U.S. Comptroller General. Report to the Congress : The Federal Program to Strengthen Developing Institutions of Higher Education Lacks Direction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1979. 126

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Education Amendments of 1980. Hearing, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., October 17, 1979. Washington: Government Printing Office., 1979.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Higher Edu­ cation Act of 1965. Hearing, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., October. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965.

U.S. Office of Education. Qualification for Advanced Status Reports— 1973-1976.

Wilberforce University. Bulletin 1979-1981. Ohio, 1979.

Unpublished Works

Campbell, Malcolm B. "Federal Policy Toward Institutional Aid in Higher Education: The Developing Institutions Program in Comparative Per­ spective." Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Compara­ tive and International Education Society of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, June, 1975.

Gupta, Bhagwan S. "A Study of Title III, Higher Education Act of 1965 and an Evaluation of its Impact on Selected Predominantly Black Colleges." Ph.D. Dissertation, North Texas State University, 1971. APPENDICES APPENDIX A

Higher Education Act of 1965, Title Ill-

Strengthening Developing Institutions Legislation 129

t

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

TITLE III—STRENGTHENING DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS

AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 301. (a) The Commissioner shall carry out a program of special assistance to strengthen the academic quality of developing institu­ tions which have the desire and potential to make a substantial con­ tribution to the higher education resources of the Nation but which are struggling^ for survival and arc isolated from the main currents of academic life. (b) (X) For the purpose of carrying out this title, there are author­ ized to be appropriated $120,000,000'for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for each of the succeeding fiscal years endin

Sec. 302. (a) (1) For the purposes of this title, the term “develop­ ing institution” means an institution of higher education in any State which— (A) is legally authorized to provide, and provides within the State, an educational program for which it awards a bachelor’s degree, or is a junior or community college ; (B) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Commissioner to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation ; (C) except as is provided in paragraph (2), has met the re­ quirement of clauses (A) and (B) during the five academic years preceding the academic year for which it seeks assistance under this title ; and (D) meets such other requirements as the Commissioner shall prescribe by TeguIation, whichrequirements shaH 'include At least a determination that the institution— (i) is-making au reasonable effort to improve the quality of its_teaching_ and administrative staffs and of its student services; and (ii) is, for financial or other reasons, struggling for sur­ vival and isolated from the main currents of academic life. 130

(2) The Commissioner is authorized to waive the requirements set forth in clause (C) of parag aph (1) in the case of applications for grants under this title by institutions located on or near an Indian reservation or a substantial population of Indians if the Commissioner determines such action will increase higher education for Indians. The Commissioner is authorized to waive three years of the require­ ments set forth in clause (C) of paragraph (1) in the case of applica­ tions for grants under this title by institutions if the Commissioner determines such action will substantially increase higher education for Spanish-speaking people. (b) Any institution desiring special assistance under the provisions of this title shall submit an application for eligibility to the Commis­ sioner at such time, in such form, and containing such information, as may be necessary to enable the Commissioner to evaluate the need of the applicant for such assistance and to determine its elgibility to be a developing institution for the purposes of this title. The Commis­ sioner shall approve any application for eligibility under this subsec­ tion which indicates that the applicant is a developing institution meeting the requirements set forth in subsection (a). (c) For the purposes of clause (A) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a.) of this section, the term “junior or community college” means an institution of higher education— (1) which doesTiot provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor’s degree (or an equivalent degree); (2) which admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary educa­ tion (or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate); and (3) which does— (A) provide an educational program of not less than two years which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or (B) offer a two-year program in engineering, mathemat­ ics, or the physical or biological sciences, which program is designed to prepare a student to work as a technician and at the semiprofessional level in engineering, scientific, or other technological fields, which fields require the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathemati­ cal principles of knowledge. (20 U.S.C. 1052) Enacted June 23,1972, P.L. 92-318, Title I, sec. 121 (a), 86 Stat. 241, 242; amended August 21, 1974, P.L. 93-380, sec. 832, 88 Stat. 603; amended October 12, 1976, P.L. 94-482, Title I, Part C, sec. 112, 90 Stat. 2091.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS

Sec. 303. (a) There is hereby established an Advisory Council on Developing Institutions (in this title referred to as the “Council”) consisting of nine members appointed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary. (b) The Council shall, with respect to the program authorized by this title, carry out the duties and functions specified by part C of the General Education Provisions Act and, in particular, it shall assist the Commissioner— _ _ . , (1) in identifying developing institutions through which the purposes of this title may be achieved; and _ (2) in. establishing the priorities and criteria to be used in making grants under section 304(a). (20 U.S.C. 1053) Enacted June 23, 1972, P.L. 92-318, Title I, sec. 121(a), 86 Stat. 242,243. 131

USES OF FUNDS: COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS, NATIONAL TEACHING FELLOWSHIP, AND PROFESSORS EMERITUS

Sec. 304. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants and awards, in accordance with the provisions of this title, for the purpose of strengthening developing institutions. Such grants and awards shall be used solely for the purposes set forth in subsection (b). (b) Funds appropriated pursuant to section 301(b) shall be avail­ able for— (1) grants to institutions of higher education to pay part of the cost of planning, developing, and carrying out cooperative arrangements between developing institutions and other institu­ tions of higher education, and between developing institutions and other organizations, agencies, and business entities, which show promise as effective measures for strengthening the academic pro­ gram and the administrative capacity of developing institutions, including such projects and activities as— (A) exchange of faculty or students, including arrange­ ments for bringing visiting scholars to developing institutions, (B^ faculty and administration improvement programs, utilizing training, education (including fellowships leading to advanced degrees), internships, research participation, and other means, (C) introduction of new curricula and curricular materials, (D) development and operation of-cooperative education programs involving-alternate-periods of academic study and business or public employment, and (E) joint use of facilities such as libraries or laboratories, including necessary books, materials, and equipment; (2) National Teaching Fellowships to be awarded by the Com­ missioner to highly qualified graduate students and junior faculty members of institutions of higher education for teachingat de­ veloping institutions ; and (3) Professors Emeritus Grants to be awarded by the Com­ missioner to professors retired from active service at institutions of higher education to encourage themto teach or~ to-conduct research at developing institutions. (c) (1) An application for assistance for the purposes described in subsection (b) (1) shall be approved only if it— (A) sets forth a program for carrying out one or more of the activities described in subsection (d)(1), and sets forth such policies and procedures for the administration of the program as will insure the proper and efficient operation of the program and the accomplishment of the purposes of this title ; (B) sets forth such policies and procedures as will insure that Federal funds made available under this section for any fiscal year will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of such Fed­ eral funds be made available for the purposes of the activities described in subsection (b)(1), and in no case supplant such funds; (C) sets forth policies and procedures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the project or activity in accomplishing its purpose ; (I>) provides for such-fiscal control and fund accounting pro­ cedures as may be necessary to insure proper disbursement of and accounting for funds made available under this title to the applicant ; and 132

(E) provides for making such reports, in such foîm and con­ taining such information, as the Commissioner may require to carry out his functions under this title, and for keeping such rec­ ords and affording such access thereto, as he may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports. The Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Council, establish by regulation criteria as to eligible expenditures for which funds from grants for cooperative arrangements under clause (1) of subsection (b) may be used, which criteria shall be so designed as to prevent the use of such funds for purposes not necessary to the achievement of the purposes for which the grant is made. . (2) (A) Applications for awards described in clauses (2) and (3) of subsection (b) may be approved only upon a finding by the Com­ missioner that the program of teaching or research set forth therein is reasonable in the light of the qualifications of the applicant and of the educational needs of the institution at which the applicant intends to teach. ' (B) No application for a National Teaching Fellowship or a Pro­ fessors Emeritus Grant shall be approved for an award of such a fel­ lowship or grant for a period exceeding two academic years, except that the award of a ProfessoFs Emeritus Granfcmay-be for such period, iu addition to such two-year-period of award, as-the Commissioner, upon the advice of the Council, may determine in accordance with policies of the Commissioner set forth in regulations. (C) Each person awarded a National Teaching Fellowship or a Professors Emeritus- Grant-shall receive a stipend for each academic year of teaching (or, inthecaseof a recipientof a Professors Emeritus Grant, research) as determined by the Commissioner upon the advice of the Council, plus an additional allowance for each such year for each dependent of such person. In the case of National Teaching Fel­ lowships, such allowance may not exceed $7,500, plus $400 for each dependent. (20 U.S.C. 1054) Enacted June 23, 1972, P.L. 92-318, title I, sec. 121(a), 86 Stat. 243, 244.

ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS UNDER OTHER PROGRAMS

Sec. 305. (a) Each institution which the Commissioner determines meets the criteria set forth in section"302(a) shaltbe eligible for waiv­ ers in accordance^with subsection (b). (b)(1) Subject to, and in accordance with, regulations promul­ gated for the purpose of this section, in the case of any application by a developing institution for assistance under any programs specified in paragraph (2), the Commissioner is authorized, if such application is otherwise approvable, to waive any requirement for a non-Federal share of the cost of the program or project, or, to the extent not incon­ sistent with other law, to give, or require to be given, priority consider­ ation of the application in relation to applications from ifistitutions whcli are not developing institutions. (2) The provisions of this section shall apply to any program authorized by title II. IV, VI, or VTI of this Act. 133

(c) The Commissioner shall not waive, under subsection (b). the non-Federal share requirement for any program for applications which, if approved, would require the expenditure of more than 10 per centum of the appropriations for the program for any fiscal year. (20 U.S.C. 1055) Enacted June 23, 1972, P.L. 92-318, Title I, sec. 121(a), 86 Stat. 244. LIMITATION

Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to section 301 (b) (1) shall be used for a school or department of divinity or for any religious worship or sectarian activity. (20 U.S.C. 1056) Enacted June 23, 1972, P.L. 92-318, Title I, sec. 121(a), 86 Stat 245. Ï3M

APPENDIX B

Other Title III Participating Institutions 135

Title III, Higher Education Act of 1965 Strengthening Developing Institutions Advanced Institutional Development Program

Other Title III Participating Institutions Four-Year Private

ALABAMA Tuskegee Institute GEORGIA Clark College Morehouse College Morris Brown College Spelman College KENTUCKY Union College LOUISIANA Xavier University of Louisiana MISSISSIPPI Rust College MISSOURI Park College Rockhurst College NEW JERSEY Bloomfield College NORTH CAROLINA Bennett College Johnson C. Smith University St. Augustine’s College Shaw University PENNSYLVANIA Lincoln University SOUTH CAROLINA Baptist College at Charleston TENNESSEE Fisk University TEXAS Bishop College St. Mary’s University VIRGINIA Hampton Institute Virginia Union University Benedict College APPENDIX C

Cover Letter and Questionnaire

Sent to Faculty and Key Administrative Personnel 137

^LLnive.xâUy

<1/Vl[^\fouu lOUto 433S4

Am«nrtf CoHtgw Owned • «*d OP«'o’«d by N«gro«i

Planning and Research (S13) 376-2911 September 4, 1979

Dear Colleague:

Helen Jones, a doctoral candidate at Bowling Green State University, is doing her dissertation on Title III with specific reference to Wilberforce University. The Institutional Research and Planning Office is assisting her in this effort. The purpose of the questionnaire is not to evaluate individual situations or specific programs, but rather to arrive at generalizations which can be useful for future planning.

Faculty members and senior level administrators are being surveyed to assess the impact of Title III programs on campus. You will need only ten to fifteen minutes to complete this questionnaire. Each questionnaire is coded with an identifica­ tion number for convenience in determining those persons who have completed the questionnaire. Please be assured that responses will be presented in summary form and that respondents will not be personally identified in reports of this study.

Please return the completed questionnaire to me no later than September 11, 1979.

Thank you for your generous cooperation in this important project. Sincerely yours

Director, Institutional Planning and Research

MSF:tb

Attachment 138 w P a C F C Supportive Basic ing l h F t ( n o p I ( E I m c ( ( i I o s ( i e e ( r h i n s m S h x R S o a c r m m t n c a i t n e r

w t p o p t C n n o s p p

u u s n c h s o e a u r t u a L u c a t r o r d field a c e l e h u

r d o o d n E r e g - o s r e

n r u

r m g i e v 1 e s g 2 s 3. d 4 5. n e v Y i i n d e d M

g a h . n n . e t . n e r

ONÉ t m e e t c t e a

a

i t

n g y e

t

a M r e

i a u

s s O t v s p c

o s p o ahd a a n l Teacher P o i

e

readiness r h

' e o

u C V t F h Not f I N

n t t u n

R

7 i - e e

m a

o h e a a y f m o a N i m

,

O P b e x individualized m S t y p m e think c r

i e p

g U o

G and y r p n p k a t o e

p q y r E r o a o e M n - to R r e o t i Reading t a u t o q u

x l i r n p i s m

B A r o a g l i i r e s u i p y i n t d t

i m e

E M i g i t l r c

n i n e r a

e g a m

n p n R

g n e include r i s a s

s opinions t c e p n s n p p i t o i

n e a o , E m

c t i y

i d

t u o m

r F o c p n m n

d

P i o o - t w b

— b r i p e t O n P e s ) é C u to Basic o r

m n b a r M l n ) t o a — r R r : r o c

n o p s

a i

is a

i a n

s r

o a o

a C : i g e s t P s d d

j n o t t g ÈACH l r t e F assume s

t r e t r i s

o don't — n t a

r d i n r ) e a d a e o r

u n r — n a b c i o t e

• n m

d n g e Media r e e t m o u n e n

s M c about d

r

c i n l l n

— u

s r a

h a instrpction, y I r a n d t c a a , o r P i , t Program m t

m e s m i e

o t l

t

s R n

i h

a p t s i r d i i m d

really e m O e , o n T p r r s n o e

s m I i d s a G s

n

h a u

o e n c m u m r t Communications i

r R s i r S F c basic v each s d , t n p o e r k

A l n e a r t e )

e

i r c e e M m e m k p e i m to d c o t c important electronic t a a i

i o r s e

a v e t

i n d n n n o h n

t e d to e know n a i a ) g f m t o t i m

d g g n r

a e math f

h

o e t

e , g

, n s

S e n n o t

m t

d

s k

the s t

h e o

and t F e i i C

i e

n i e o l r t o o

m

t s m i n

l F e e n

u s p i

) k p m q

areas s A s r a i n p k o i

needs, o p u j i , C h m l s r i r o l

m r j o g

U m i

s e o l t l e r t P r h t L a n roles l g l a s

p d a r t

T n e ­ r s n

d i i n o a about

Y

a t u a m t g n of

m

c r p

t r A t s needs

o but

n^çds a

ï i

r } m needs o p l t

V n

i F i

a t e

m ADMINISTRATIVE A s n o h r p L

t t t

i y L o e of

h b s , r 1 d 1 e needs u 1

y

1 t 1

r t

p a 1 y below. s

r n 9 o

o o t 7 u t are g 9 r

h r

e of a

i r m

n s j s

t u C t h s are

Important i i e t STAFF r t

c u

important i l t m n i e 2 o 2 s 2 2 2 o

2

r

t

n o e i . n

t

e u i

t m P number i p l o o e n r a t s a F important e n a

t i u for r s l 3 e 3 3 y 3 3

3

each the

following p r o g Not i r m a p m o 4 4 4 4 4 r 4 t t o c a

o n d indicate t e

in

No o

p .

i n 5 5 5 i 5 5 5 o n 139 Audio-Visual L C ment, ( I (design R (faculty M E ( E to D ( e a ( e A A ( P Basic ( n E e l a C ( d x ( x u E (to a a n m n ( v I l s f c s i n p a o p i

p n a s r o m d t a D a t o f r t a t l m m a a g s r career l n o r

i

n u r e u a g a a

p p n n i e i - d

i a l n d P 2

m

e i n b r e e d n

d s u D n

a l i e r

e a m n o t o l s t n

e t

l o e g b

n n years o s t u e i i S v i c h e e

C C e p g

i t g o State g p t n n i e n c s i r a n a s o t p r s l , R f r e p g e t

o g i e h i n P c r

h

o o e

i

e u x

a ) c n e

n t n

c R y e e d p r e c t s t study t c m R i

a n c h g F e O f

- e e e t h

y o

) h h e

a n q e S e , r

o G B r p v r o S u u E e

a at C s l d

e

e r e R F a l i e a e n of r n

n U e o

l

r

p n s A Mass r s c a P l r t i c g

g a n f o y v r Enhancement i a h Special M e e e c l o v i t e i

e U a r i r

o i n t m s s d a e i p m v i s n , c n c 3 v d g c u s i ) a h n

m c e a e e

e i

h i e i r n r e t

n m n e e

d t s I l e C , v years r n

a a j s i

a Media i s n e

E n i r e

e o s a m H l

t C n n

t r t d s f i i f n r ) i t e , E u C o

g y

n i D t u o n o t s t i

a v t e

t m

) C a qf r e c r r g e i y o l a : i n p C p o

l u

v a

r t

n t l o t h a

o

m s c e t work s

P y a J

meeting, h u n e y r C s p t

l i g e t r D

o

a a r

s e o i o i r o o l and

o e i of t C l

P i e m t s a o p n e W g v n i

a r c r m i d i n m

c

i r e

t o r r o a - u u o t a e

t e l a l

D e n e g l R n a n i l n e e x b m o a P

s

r

e t i

o

t d q p e

p y r e A A a e l c a n L

D u e t

r m a o c d s m a a n

a i e c r o f e r g m m t ) t t

d b p p v o n i o n c r i a i

i e r m o u ) e e r h t a n v j o d especially o e r r l n ) c

i m i o n

g n s a o c e s

t s r r t e Programs t p e

t y , a ) s ’ o m

U r

s m

) r e r n a

) B y n e i t d u

t l i v e s

a o e v i P t n r e n t e ) s l

e o d i o s t g

t p h s r y ­ e a

m

V important e r y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I m p o r 2 2 2 2 t 2 2 2 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 n t i F m a p i o r r 3 3 3 3 l t 3 3 3 3 3 3 y a 3 3 3 n t Not i m p o 4 4 4 4 4 r 4 4 4 4 4 4 t 4 4 a n t No o p i n 5 5 5 5 i 5 5 5 5 5 5 o 5 5 5 n n : o n n i o 5 o n

i 5 5 i 5 i 5 5 f t 5 n p o s i o No e

p O u N o q

terms the

e n

v i g t i

n n t i a c r 4 t e e 4 r 4 f 4 t 4 w been 4 4 o f o s

p e N n m a i Not

have in

s e m e d a v o r t i c g n t y s

o 3 a c l n r 3 3 t 3 y e r 3 o 3 p 3 r l f i i

o r f a t e p i e F a h m a t t i F c

e p following x

e e think v the d

t i e d u

n t e ë o 2 a c c h y 2 2 t 2 e 2 x s use 2

2 r f e i

e o f e l

v p E s d s p d i m a t ë m e t I e n h b h c i e s c s e l f i c i f P m l a l f h

p p

e

s e m m g

i v o o n l t i c c i p n t c c m e way. how m 1 a

c a a b a

o 1 1 t 1 e 1 r

1 c e 1 r f g g g c t o y f o n n a a p r e Very r i i are this c

m e p e e

i

i V b

b d l

n e ­

t

e e i goal e r n

n

r r f

o

e

a m

this a a goals )

f

, Sup m g m t a

n l w ^nd

p n h n r

s o d a o o i

s e g , l i e you c l l l e d s o a t t

e i e e r u l r ) i o c y b d v s F l t s P about r g goals e h

e e n i S e

t

p

w m D k u c t

t , h x e program,

S n o

e n a r g h e t e sciences seniors e C e

h e a

u t the n t

i

h

g

t n m t o

e and a , c t r n n i

p n n f l listed c s m ) o a

i m y o e

e of o l i y a

n f

f m e k l l d M

e d

c r o s l o S

h n l e u A y c n g a i m a e s

i

a v t

R n i x o m s i a m s e s h n i s e G a e r s r

special c r a r r r T a c D O

some know

p

e a d o g

u r F e m e

R

e t

f

h n s o Q g b h p m ,

P c o t o an d a p r

C o m s s e r u —

n r ' o

p the e r

e

e e t e d H e p n ) o

n h

, s m P r s t e C v —

m o

g i t n s i

F n y r — A , i e e d

of i

l s Math, s e e S e S E

m t t v a n a

e e m C

I o

s v

a c i

i o m h i o c

n M t y : r i — e t g a t

d c i Coordination g g o

s s g

legal t f n — c

m r g n u e s n n

i p - m o c FOR f o

e e a y g n t b a i i b t m o a

r e i e e f v types r s i o S B n u

d a a l r R P f h n i f

careers g

r r

s

i a m r e g

E ) t

f i t e o

t o p a to y a e r M g

v o , B n

e p c their e r n j

r r R

o A r o e t s o M o m e

u P e

a y f T a s f R p l r d n evening i in U

a t

f s

r g m r o n n

n G l e P ) t

N r

o f r h e n o

i r 7 g i I O f m a

No s g N Fairly E u Very t f i t t e l k f n to R in e t

r E e o p l f h c n ) t a p S i P g n s t

a

N s r a

i s not

u

t e

y n

i s e

a e e n e g Tutorial O r P . . e s . d i s d m g i

c i i d n e u e n Y 5.

u 4 2. 3

1 t H l o p o

s

a r u n a v i m - y o E w n p o

l r e n i l O R i M i r e t t c L a e m l o h t d i c d t

o

t

g s l

C L d

e t n

o n e a

n n r

t d r a a r

d u R u -

v h c i r i i

o

e u n

o

t

i n d

t c

I e

e c t c l (

c

t t and Why?

u Composition, p a a F

a s a C

r d e (

a l

( Of

( n

Office (

F D

M (

F P

t (

A students

an i

0V1 141 D a W AID W ( P W Basic W life ( u E n h W ( C h Why? s ( l h I not introductory ( Why? h i ( a s d y h i o y t t a y n m y n d l ?

t y m o ? u m

n ? t o ? s e - p ?

a 2 d p P n d

e t

v r D

b e e e r i u r m

i e o science e l y n n t o n l d a t l S v g t i e h e g g e i j u o c e r s s a a n s , r s o t p

i P

e r h n

c a c r i m e t R e s

c s y d m R o i i e n h O

Freshman e t - e

e n p n n c e G E

u at B v Coordination s a l g t e

R n Freshman d a e l e

i

program) n A g y

s l a

n p of E a i M i

U e o r p a r n t n n n 3 d p c

l r o

u h

e i

e h a y g r a t a e v years , d I n

r

a h n r e

n n l a S e c s i r C s f i E , t m

y e n s o

t o n v

u

n m s g i m C r r g a d t p e in o

t p o

u

l i h h n c P y at o m c s u e a e

y i t r

s p t e s a n s a s

the o of i o i l

t d i l i P W g t s o e

i s P c r i

r i i n c o r r

a o s l a D o t a t e n o c l c g s b m a n i l e s

g o i

p r y e

o

d e Activity r e u e a t a r L n D

a n a r c m o n f a

e r c c m s i n d o b P c v o e e a )

r o r h u e s

l e c o r ) r l )

f s e g a s o o s p r

t e p r c e a U s o m

i m c n ) r e ) e s i i y n n e a v

t c n l e

e i l r P s o y s r

r

i o s for t t g

h y r a e

a

n

m d students

a V e n e f

r f y e c 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 i v e E f f e c 2 2 2 t 2 2 2 2 i v e Fairly e f f e c 3 3 3 t 3 3 3 i 3 v e Not e f f e 4 4 4 c 4 4 4 4 t i v e N o O p i n 5 5 5 i 5 5 5 5 o n 142 L W C d Why? ( I W ( M R W e ( Expand h W ( e e E d t (assist n h f ( a e d h a y h E n v e x o f y a m n a c y r ? y n t s e p

? c o o t a ? r n

? g r i l a career r u r a g u i i

_ g a o n e l

m e i n n n l ______p d

t a ______m o t e g

m

y o t e u i e

o Career e

State C p t n i n r P R f n t o exchange, p p t o i g R

e t h o

u o ) n n

O s t e , p t r c

g G for o h

) e t h , S R u e p

r u o e

e A r

l U a i n s r

Mass M c a P f n c t i p v S e c a l e i i t e i p s c e a s v v i c c e

i

n ) m e e e i e c

l C n e

r s joint a s i M i e i n s E l

a t e n n t i d l for C l y d t g

t u y e )

i e

of y c

n C a r

a

in t a

m J t w e r C D g e o i

o r e o e r e i o Health r

e m v a t n n k r m e d i t

- u l u n

e R n o a g P x e i t p , r p l c e m

o

e a a s e m g C r t t ) n r a a i i e t a r j e o d m e n o n

c r s P A e , ’s r d

o

m r g Business i e r n l a . a m ) t s e d

V e e f r f y e c 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 i

v e E f f 2 e c 2 2 2 t 2 2 i .

v e . ______3 F e a f i f r e l c 3 3 3 t y 3 3 i

v ; ______e 4 N effective o t 4 4 4 4 ______4

5 N o o p i n 5 5 5 i 5 5 o n n o 5

5 i 5 n ______i p o o N 5 5

4 45 4 t o effective N 4 4 4 e v

3 i 3 3 t y 3 c l e r f i f a e F 3 3 e v

i

2 2 2 t 2 c ______.

. e - f 2 2 f E e v

i

1 1 1 t 1 1 1 c e y f r f e e

V

n m

o

a

i r , of t g a

c

o i

e s u r d roles s n l d P e l i

l o m

l m l i r s

i r a k areas p n c k e n s

o i s t ) o

n i

t e

i to o t n s t d s

r a e n n s

g t c m o e e , math n c i p i m f n

t i ) e n i t e o o c d n n l u u

v a

r i a i e o e q m t o c m p t e s m i e m n r

i ) a a c l a e t o

) e , p s n r r u b v c

s C m m n m u r g a

u o s s

p o s I m t p o n r r marketing,and e e and a o i i m

s

r i t p s n

i

t l l o m n e P s m

r i , d a s a e c a i m n

I y u

s l l e n l v r

i u

n c

o u m e e M r a e g n s o d

n b m c a n r u i D

o e s e i d ) e a r

n o

s r

r t a z t e s t r l g o j c s e s P t

i i a s e g a o s i

a t e i

s l c a p o r r r ) n l M a c r n a to a u b m r e e e P i b

i m b w o u

d - o n c P p

u d

v

i

d s E y c n e

t p f n s r p t e i s c

e

include g n s n

o a g e e i r v e n i r n i

c M

e d p

n S t i s i n r e e i o i

A m n x y i

s u o d i e t h a t t n e R a t E r - l q n p d p e c t and

a o g G i

e

y a c i m x a p a t m

i a O l y f b u a e o e

e m a t e t n R i h f - s r C

e T o

h n a a P b p and o p i s

s

c

s t r e M a a

e V t a n t e t

t a m

l r e e t - n e n a ______v n h ______n M e i

g s ______v e s o

_ r

e m e o g

e

g

a r o

o d

? i c

field

d

h d

r u

c ? c a v

u

? t r

u y d n

a ?

u u s p

o n

y i a n

o

y o p t h i u

y

t

n t

e m

r

o

h s

c (

a

h

m h

s

W

( A

h i

s n

Why? s

(curriculum I

r h

W c

( a

m Expand

W I

( p

W o

( F

t B

CbT 3 .

144 Allied Why? t P W ( F w M ( W Data F ( Why? O e ( q r h _ s _ _ ( ______a ______a _ a P t u c f c t h e y u _ t ______d c ______n u l n h f o u _ ? p - r _ d y u _ a _ t e n d ’ i n _ d a

p _ L l ? g _ o

_ a o

t

______c e i _ o ____ a c t ______r e ______Management l s _ _ i ______Raising e n _ n r w o y i m o _ Health _ e n _ _

t t

u

n F

e g

I u

s

i s P r T Basic F g Expand i A L C I n y e m place

I t n r s t P u

r r u e ) m P e t p n p a t ______h o e R t e s d i a p

n r R t f f u e e s g O o s n t i r r o t O o I f o r r m

r G r h

o - o n v r

) G n r

s . n a R in

i m , e v - Y e i ______d a R

f m P u T s A m a

a M v e V e

n l e A o a a r

e r M

l n a M e

i a g

v and M r t

o a to S R the

t , a n s

T r

e State m i

c s g i c e h C n P i u

e Resources l o a u h r n

a s e o a r n a a P

o n t b e i a r b p

m m g o g l c r E p i -

c n m e e o l a p

e g

h o s x o

S k g e

c n e t m o r t

g y S

p n M e

r o d o g i e s a E s r e

a I U r b s m

i c

n i m t d S r a n n v f e

t . ______i , l to s t

t e

r > u v m e d i i s

i

m i y

e c i

v c i m n

p s ) P o d P

a C c M e e d especially e

t r a r n u r t o e C a r s e m p e o s o

c o i o s e s s

b m h f

g P e g r o n

s i C t e a e m r

r r d n t

D t D e h r r s a a o a i e s e y e Media n e s m s n m g m n t r Program v v t

a

i y

r u a

e e e Joint p c o of

Improvement a d t l l D r r y n _ o ______e m i o o e o _ )

f

n

o p p v

g a t

t ______I n m m e C t r n h t

m e e l

o h a d e h a p n n o m e P m

e t r t p t

m r s m D

t o m

u o S

e e p r v e P n t g d b v r i e n r i u r i e e o t m t o c d a ___ c l l g i e g a e m a o o r o n r t n l 1 w

p n a t _ i ______a t i

m ) 1 m

_

m o that e s n

;

n

s t a

s e V P

-

f e r y y f r o o o e y g u u c r ______

1

t 1 1 a 1 feel 1 i a m v r e e

f * would a m i l i E

2 a f be 2 r f 2 2

e

w c m 2 i t o t

i r h v e . e

e f f e __ c 3 3 t ______3 F effective i a v i e r

l 3 i 3 y f

a d d i 4 4 t 4 i o n N e a o f l t f

e m c 4 o 4 t n

i i v e 5 e 5 s 5

w e r e

No o a p v i a n i 5 5 i l o a n b l e

t o

fKUGRAMS S

V _____ Recruiting for Special Career-Related Programs I _____ Expand ¿areer Planning _____ Expand Cooperative Education _____ Dual-Degree Engineering Program _____ AID Program Coordination _____ Planning, Research, Evaluation Activity _____ Basic Science Enhancement Program _____ Establish Freshman Composition Laboratory _____ Competency-B^sed Instructional Development Program _____ Interdisciplinary Studies Program _____ Allied Health Program _____ Pre-Law Program _____ Faculty Tutorial Program ____ _ Management Information System Development Program _____ Fund Raising Training

4. If Title III programs have had any effect on your own work in general, indicate what that effect has been below:

Work load has increased ____ _ Changed some ideas about how to do my work _____ Contact with more students ____ _ Contact with more of my colleagues _____ Contact with more colleagues external tp Wilbprforce University _____ Others, please specify

5. What are some of the important needs of your institution that were not funded by Title III?

6. In what ways has Title III affected the decisj.on-'-makiqg process at the University?

7. Have any of the Title III program research and evaluation procedures and instruments had a significant impact on non"Title III funded programs? Yes No Comment: ). 146 A W C F Freshman Basic E d A Improve I C L R E E I h A D Basic Planning, E C A I Interdisciplinary F F M i P x d u m e e e x n x a u I s o l R a a u r r p i d p a n c p f p t a D t m l C c n n s e a t i r r t r o a a

l

a p i L u a d t - n i o o n r u r n n - k P b e e E l g

-

d L o v - i a i m d d D i r

l 1. t 2 d 4 3 t e P Y R Math n

a e V n l t a

e n . o . . i S e O m y R e a

a M w

i g

i t

C g d C g s c n N H

e O i a

l a and T s

State n i a r

o r i h c E e T n G s r C n

P e u R g o

r e o of O P a e

y Nò a I

a u t R i

o a r a a c e

n r e e p f m R n F d - n N l t

A n Program P m

g o o c l o s

e e f e f

c r

m f B U t o M g g I r p e g h e m o S r o r contact E s C i e e o i r a c M h r

n o o m r e x m Services u

r e a a e n o c

r s n s o

B f i T g s e a r p e i r U r P t a g o i m h E i e n o E a P r f r i

m n a n c n v l i r S i r a a m n s . d t l l r R a a t t n t E e i i c a p v n d l

l

h t a a

o

i m i

d s d s v c h e n e e i

a r B n c F

g I P n S

o

P u

e e , c n

e n n c a t c

t O r n S r i y C Mass Improvement n r c C o r s

i

i E r a c t o

C a o t a ä R o n s o

o a n e s

a n have d i t ^ e i o n w f n u t m

g g t o P

g

t n i C l g u n i v m v m i t f t d r EACH r

e r r r D i t t t

e g c o a e e p t — a i u a a m d

o a e o h e y n C

a n

l n h o e c c c m

i Media g m n v e r t

a

t P u or t s

s t t t D n r

e

e J r you i r a

a i

i the — — e a a l P r D o i e o o

c t P t o P P v t m o r e i m e n

g t i

r i n f r R e i

p o v p n r

r i o n

o o a a such o O o l

I m g a e t - h a v n o l n c g p g G n o Communications m e r c l

R a m e

t u

r r r R p p n t a o Program e d l

Activity l o a L D a A m r

t m p l

y p t g m

a e m M e o

of m

a w

a y r b as v n v e t i r

involved a o e t e

n e t t

p m r l

m Title t d h

o a o I P e

s of t p n r n

P e i o f m o t r a

t o r e g o c p i r y n r

g h r o m t a I r

o a n

m I a p g a l P

I m r s

r r

s o

a c o a g p m o g t r a

n r

a r s s a W m t u t m i

of a l l f t l b f i a e ,

n s r

g t the f , e but o

d r

e c b

p x e e r have c

l o h U o g a n w r n i .

a g v

m e s e P

o r l m s o s e e t f P i s a

a

r t t s f interaction i y a o 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 f . g 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

e f r u a a s s m e

w t i h t e h

f those o w l i O c l t f o o h f n w

i t i t i c a 2 2 2 2 2 2 n 2 2 2 h 2 2 2 2 n i 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 g e v t a

o l c p l o r v d o e e g d

r

in a in m c Informal

o a in t n n h t s

e a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 w 3 3 3 3 an 3 3 3 3 3 c 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 e 3 program, t r

i o n f g f

i c t i h a e

l e No c , q t o

u c n e . t s a 4 4 4 4 4 t 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 c 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 t o n : 1 11. 0 .

147 P A. ______B ______H L . o ______

E w _ A

_ S I I l _ E

o _

am a n

C g m H

M 4-6 7-ip 1 E a h a o - C

a 3 r K m m

y e e

e e

years years

A m m

years than P b b y P e e o L r r u I

C o of b 10 A f e B

e

L t the n years E h

e working R

E a f S a d P c m O u i N l n S t

i E y s a S ______t t

r a t t h i e o

n U ______n D i i v v e i r s s i i o t n P y

o ? s i t i o n A r e a APPENDIX D

Wilberforce University

Financial Documents 149

.■¿A Operating Income and Expenditures 1972 U

■'Vi. - 4-, xi

. . 1TTT • - • Tuition

PPP. . Private gifts and; grants-. _

GGG Government grants ooo Other income,. including endowment. SASA ~ - • Student aid-’ _

AAA Auxiliary enterprises

llllt Instruction, including co-op and library

ADAD Administration

ODD Debt payments, including mandatory transfers sss Student services^, including organized activities

2 j Year Ended June 30, 1977 Year Ended June 30, 1976 . , ~ - j Unrestricted Restricted 'Total Total-Unrestricted. _ Restricted Reven ues: ?? < ~ c.- ...... , . ------— .-w.... Educational and general? ’ A' ■» A. ' 'V ------■■ ~ . . Student tuition and fees* $2,178,126 -0- $2,178,126 $2,062,874 $2,062,874 $ —0— Governmentalappropriations ^ 2,634,920 =-3,634,920--7-3433*31—-=—i_Q_ 2,432,131 Governmental grants and contracts .108,829 818,847 927,676 830,372 87,607 742,765 Gifts and private grants—Note 0 y .385,944 480,782 866,726 1.420.733 386,500 T.034,233 . Alumni gifts . 39,617 .2,441 yl42,058 . ,17,720 16,720 1,000 Endowment income? w :: *-' ? 5,090 —a— '75^5,090 - V? 6,087 . . 6,087 —0— Other sources. 7 L:?S>i*s? •? .>? £ ’ 57,212 —0— ’ ^:S7,2Ì2 106,655 106,655 —0— . ■ ' .Total Educational and GeneraLx 2^774,818? . 3,936,990 ^6:711,808: 6,876,572 2,666,443 . 4,210,129 Auxiliary enterprises7' =M;120,114~ ’ -:7-. -0— :i iyl20,114- -3108;156; t.108,156- — —0— ■ ■' ... £i.S^>^jSvT®tal Revenues 3,894,932 3,936,990 7,831,922 7,984,728 3,774,599 4,210,129 r ‘TVi** z/*- ' Expenditures and mandatory ’ s? >; ? interfund transfers? a / -, 2 /??■'. ¿-, -J ”, ... Educational and general: ?»? - . ' - ' . Instruction . ~ :??? ' ' 637,275 733,888 t,371,163 1;290,504 631,550 7 658:954 Organized activities - ? 12:.?;'31,964.-.-" ' —0^- 1 ?3T,964 - '24,715: 24.71E = —0— ■ Libraries ’ ¿ÿn. ?? 30,302 105,880 .,136,182 ;?138i989; 35,467 103,522 - ' Student services < - 474,806 160,298 J635.1Q4 -635,633 478,186 157,447 Operation and maintenance of ~ ...... „. physical plant 330,037 330,037 294,694 .294,694 —0— General administration 265,383 56,705 322,088 352,669 294,706 57,963 Development group 58,657 101,462 160,119 147,358 52,609 94,749 General institutional 439,422 36,973 476,395 555,397 501,472 53,925 Student aid 227,012 2,737,873 2,964,885 2,740,579 86,891 2,653,688 Educational and General Expenditures 2,494,858 3,933,079 ; 6:427,93^ 6;180,538 2,400,290 3,780,248 Mandatory transfers—Interfund: - .____ J • Purchase of equipment —0— 3,911 3,911 19,881 —0— 19,881 Loan fund matching grant 35,360 —0— 35,360 •41-,51-7 41,517 —0— Total Educational and General 2,530,218 3,936,990 6,467,208 6,241,936 2,441,807 3,800,129

Auxiliary enterprises: Expenditures 996,913 —0— 996,913 854,625 854,625 _o— Mandatory transfers-for principal and interest—Interfund ...... 194,776 —0— 194,776 178,321 178,321 —0— Total Auxiliary Enterprises 1,191,689 —0— 1,191,689 1,032,946 1,032,946 —0— Total Expenditures and Mandatory Interfund Transfers 3,721,907 3,936,990 7,658,897 7,274,882 3,474,753 3,800,129

Other transfers (deduct)—Note G (63,172) (2,911) (66,083) (101,472) (101,472) —0— Excess of Revenues over Expenditures and Interfund Transfers (Expenditures and Interfund Transfers - '• , i- - Over Revenues) 109,853 (2,911) 106,942 608,374 198,374 410,000 Mandatory transfers—Intrafund—Note D —0— —0— >z a— —0— 410,000 (410,000) I, " * - -fSt7^,-S-Î lî-f '■ Excess of Revenues over Expenditures * - and Transfers (Expenditures and ’’ Transfers over Revenues) $ 109,853 $ (2,911) $ 106,942 $ 608,374 $ 608,374 $ —0—

See notes to financial statements 13 APPENDIX E

Funding Level of Title III Programs at

Wilberforce University Funding Level of Title III Programs

Less than $50,000- $70,000- $100,000- $150,000- $200,000 Programs $50,000 $69,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 or more

First-Year Coordination X Basic Math X Freshman Composition X Mass Media Communication X Management Program X Teacher Education X Audio-Visual Services X Learning Resources Center X Central State Joint Program X Info. Services Center X Recruiting-Special Career X Career Planning X Cooperative Education X Dual Degree Engineering X AID Program Coordination X Planning, Research, Evaluation X Basic Science X Fresh. Composition Lab X 1 5

Competency-Based Instruction X 2 Funding Level of Title III Programs (continued)

Less than $50,000- $70,000- $100,000- $150,000- $200,000 Programs $50,000 $69,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 or more

Interdisciplinary Studies X Allied Health X Faculty Tutorial Program X Management Info. System X Fund-Raising Training X Pre-Law Program X