Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 1-1-2005 Knowing When a Higher Education Institution is in Trouble Pamela S. Sturm [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Higher Education Administration Commons Recommended Citation Sturm, Pamela S., "Knowing When a Higher Education Institution is in Trouble" (2005). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 367. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KNOWING WHEN A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION IS IN TROUBLE by Pamela S. Sturm Dissertation submitted to The Graduate College of Marshall University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership Approved by Powell E. Toth, Ph. D., Chair R. Charles Byers, Ph. D. John L. Drost, Ph. D. Jerry D. Jones, Ed. D. Department of Leadership Studies 2005 Keywords: Institutional Closure, Logistic Regression, Institutional Viability Copyright 2005 Pamela S. Sturm All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT KNOWING WHEN A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION IS IN TROUBLE by Pamela S. Sturm This study investigates factors that measure the institutional viability of higher education organizations. The purpose of investigating these measures is to provide higher education officials with a means to predict the likelihood of the closure of a higher education institution. In this way, these viability measures can be used by administrators as a warning system for corrective action to ensure the continued viability of their institutions. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation, in loving memory, to my father Donald R. Sturm. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I learned long ago that one does not achieve anything of significance without the help of others. The writing of this dissertation was no exception to that rule. I wish to express my deepest appreciation to: My daughter, Patricia Elise Sturm, for her support, for the way she always just assumed that pursuing a doctoral degree was well within my abilities, and for the fact that providing for her future is the motivation behind most of my career ambitions. My fiancé, Dennis P. Prisk, whose encouragement and comfort kept me from being overwhelmed and kept me on task on many occasions. My sister, Kimberly S. Parsons, who has always helped me with whatever I asked and is the person whose support made the completion of my masters degree possible. Dr. Powell E. Toth, my chair, for his guidance and superb management of my committee. Dr. John L. Drost, my minor chair, whose kindness helped me through a complicated situation and who provided the means by which I was able to minor in mathematics in my doctoral coursework. Dr. R. Charles Byers, my boss (though he does not like to be called that), committee member, and mentor, whose support and wise counsel has helped me not only to realize the goal of completing my terminal degree, but also has taught me how to be a better person. Dr. Jerry L. Jones, a cheerful and positive force on my committee who always provided constructive comments. Dr. Samuel Securro, master of statistics and SPSS, who kindly reviewed my statistical analyses and reassured me that I was on the correct path. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT iii DEDICATION iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES ix CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1 Viability 5 Types of Viability Measures and Previous Prediction Models 6 Fiscal Viability Measures 6 Productivity Viability Measures 11 Demographic Viability Measures 11 Statement of the Purpose of the Study and Research Question 12 Operational Definitions 13 Methods 29 Significance 29 Limitations 30 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 31 Classification of Viability Measures 31 Evolution of Predictive Models for Institutional Viability and 31 Associated Measures Considerations in the Development of Fiscal Viability Measures 76 Financial Ratios, a Special Type of Fiscal Viability Measure 80 vi Summary 84 CHAPTER III: METHODS 89 Purpose of the Study 89 Research Design 90 Population 90 Null Hypothesis 90 Instrumentation and the Database 91 Significant Predictors 91 Data Analysis 93 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 94 Presentation and Analysis of Data 94 Descriptive Parameters 95 Modeling Considerations 100 The Logistic Regression Results 102 Findings – What the Descriptive Parameters and the Model Mean 106 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 115 Summary of Purpose and Procedures 115 Summary of Findings and Conclusions 116 Implications and Recommendations 117 REFERENCE 121 vii APPENDICES A Curriculum Vitae 130 B List of Institutions in Study 137 C List of Private, 4-Year Institutions Closed in the 1990s 173 D Predictor Variables used in Logistic Regression Analysis 176 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 The Sixty College Study Income and Expenditure Categories 33 2 The Sixty College Study and Follow-Up Study Comparison of 35 Income and Expenditure Category Percentages 3 Bowen’s (1968) Income and Expenditure Categories 37 4 Jenny and Wynn’s (1970) Income and Expenditure Measures 38 5 Jellema’s (1971) Proportions of Income and Expenditure Categories 42 6 Andrew and Friedman (1976) Study Indicators 49 7 Lupton et al. Institutional Health Variables 54 8 Means and Standard Deviations for Wood’s (1977) Model 58 9 Minter’s (1979) Ratios 61 10 Kacmarczyk’s (1985) Significant Predictors 69 11 Galicki’s (1981)Viability Indicators used in His DFA 70 12 Summary of Galicki’s SDA Functions 71 13 KPMG et al. Ratios of the CFI 83 14 Descriptive Parameters for the Entire Population of Institutions, 97 N = 1979 15 Descriptive Parameters for the Institutions that Survived the 98 1990s, Open Institutions Population, N = 1926 16 Descriptive Parameters for Institutions that did not Survive 99 the 1990s, Closed Institutions Population, N = 53 ix TABLE PAGE 17 Order of Variable Entry into the Logistic Regression Model 103 18 Model Improvement Summary 104 19 Variables in the Equation, SPSS Output for Step 23 105 20 Classification Table 105 21 Exp(β) for the Predictor Variables and Related Change 111 in the Odds of Closure 22 Private, 4-Year Institutions Closed in the 1990s 174 23 Predictor Variables Derived from the Studies of 177 Bowen (1968), Jenny and Wynn (1970, 1972), and Jellema (1971,1973) 24 Predictor Variables Derived from Variables Found to 177 be Significant in the Andrew and Friedman (1976) Study 25 Predictor Variables Derived from Variables Found to 178 be Significant in the Lupton et al. (1976) Study 26 Predictor Variables Derived from Variables Found to 179 be Significant in the Galicki (1981) Study 27 Predictor Variables Derived from Variables Found to 180 be Significant in the Heisler (1982) Study 28 Predictor Variables Derived from Variables Found to 180 be Significant in the Kacmarczyk (1985) Study 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Both institutions were small, independent colleges over one hundred years old. Bradford College (Van Der Werf, 2000), founded in 1803, was 35 miles north of Boston and had begun as Bradford Academy, a boarding school. It evolved into a women’s college in 1836 and then a junior college in 1932. In the early seventies it became a coeducational baccalaureate institution and changed its name to Bradford College. Its final commencement was held in May of 2000. Marylhurst College (Feemster, 2000) is in Marylhurst, Oregon, where it moved in 1930. It had been founded in 1893 as a women’s college by the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary. The fiscal success of the institution prior to the 1960’s can largely be attributed to the donated services and instruction of the nuns. However, in the late 1960s, social changes and Vatican II caused fewer women to join the order. Sisters were leaving or dying without a compensating influx of new members. At the same time, enrollment began to decline and was attributed to the decreasing presence of the order’s sisters in important feeder high schools. By the early seventies, the institution was in dire straits. But Marylhurst has not held its last commencement. In fact, it is a healthy, viable institution today. The closure of Bradford and Marylhurst’s rebirth can be traced directly to faculty’s and administrative leadership’s understanding of the perilous condition their institutions were in, and their willingness to act on that understanding in a concerted manner. Marylhurst’s administrators and faculty understood its changed environment and fiscal situation and knew it was time to adapt or die. They took decisive and effective steps. Conversely, Bradford’s administration and faculty never fully understood 2 their precarious situation (those who did simply left the institution), and never took orchestrated steps to save the institution. Why Bradford College Closed In order to build dormitories, Bradford borrowed money based on a future increase in enrollment. This projected increase was to an enrollment level that had never before been achieved, so the administrators must have known this was a risky endeavor. One might think that some new initiative or program had given them the confidence to predict enrollment increases. To an extent, that was the case – there were new initiatives, but they had not appreciably affected enrollment. According to Van Der Werf (2000, p. A40), the institution had, for a decade, tried appeals to a variety of constituencies: “arts students, international students, students with learning disabilities, students wanting a small institution that offers individual attention.” However, Bradford never fully embraced any of those special missions. Had Bradford settled on a niche with which everyone agreed, and strongly marketed that niche, it might have achieved its enrollment and revenue goals. In 1989, Bradford began to run an annual deficit. The annual deficit was always less than a million dollars.