Process Improvement at HBCUs

1

Preface

The role of this book is not to demonize Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs). Most are well managed and produce graduates who are making significant
contributions to nation building. As a graduate of three HBCUs, I am proud of the efforts of
the staff, faculty, and students I encountered who helped shaped my academic and
professional development. I as well as family members are beneficiaries of the caring with
excellence attitude demonstrated at Florida A & M University, and the service is sovereignty
promoted at Alabama A & M University. I am proud of these principles, because they have
formed the foundation that governs my professional life.

HBCUs have continued to be successful with minimal resources, but more than two
thirds of the students enrolled fail to complete their degrees with their cohort within six
years. In addition, to these challenges there are both internal and external factors that
threatens the long term growth and survival of several institution. There are also the
perennial challenges to the relevance of HBCUs in the post-civil rights era, financial
constraints, the perennial perception of poor customer service, campus politics and
bureaucracy, political and leadership struggles between the Board of Trustees and
presidents, instability in leadership, public perception, and an unusually high rate of
accreditation violations. These challenges are not unique to HBCUs; they are also faced by
predominately white institutions (PWIs). However, as the highest producer of African
American graduates there must be frank discussion about the problems faced by institutions
serving predominately African American students, individually and collectively, and
develop solution suited for individual institutions.

As President Obama pushes American Higher education institutions to increase the
number of graduates by 2020, the nation expects HBCUs to play a significant role in
increasing the number of minority graduates. Meeting the graduation goals require that
HBCUs increase their enrollment, improve student retention and graduation, improve
program quality and diversity, improve the ability of their graduates to compete locally and
globally, and improve their data collection and decision-making processes. These efforts
must be integrated through continuous improvement programs that are customer focus,

2

tracks students from enrollment to employment, and entrenched in a culture of data driven
decision making.

Accountability for performance requires that the institutions not only improve their
data collection processes, but increase its utilization in driving the decision making process.
In addressing the 2009 National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Conference,
Education Secretary Arne Duncan, stated that “It is especially crucial that universities and
colleges do a better job of measuring, tracking, and supporting students to raise graduation
rates, which had not budged, unfortunately, in decades…. we want to build better data
systems to measure student success and use that data to inform classroom instruction and
drive a cycle of continuous improvement ” (USDE, 2009). This challenge comes as a result
of greater commitment by the White House to assist HBCUs through increase opportunities
for federal funding. These opportunities come with greater accountability and supervision
and all HBCUs and other minority serving institutions are expected to be more vigilant in
meeting the challenges ahead if they expect to remain relevant and viable throughout the
21st century and beyond.

HBCU leaders, however, are highly sensitive of criticisms of their institutions. Past
and present discriminatory practices justify this level of defense, but with increase state,
federal, and media scrutiny, the level of accountability increases and institutional
performances are judged against established scorecards. Data is the indicator to the public,
the capabilities of the schools in managing its available resources. Therefore, in the defense
of the respective institutions we must be honest in our discussions and be aware of the data
which is available to the public. We must be honest in the discussions of the challenges that
must be overcome by several HBCUs in order for them to remain viable and competitive.
These discussions must lead to transformation at the institutional level so that that the
quality of the programs, the friendliness of the staff, and the nurturing attitude of faculty will
continue to attract of students from all over the world and of all races to enroll and graduate.

There is hope within the HBCU community that other HBCUs will surpass Howard
University, Spellman College, Florida A & M University, Clarke Atlanta and others who are
moving aggressively towards restructuring their institution to increase their competitiveness
and efficiency. Institutions such as Hampton, Xavier, Morgan State, Fayetteville State, and

3

Maryland-Eastern Shore, North Carolina A & T and Prairie View who were making
adjustments to improve their efficiency before the economic crises are better prepared to the
meet the economic challenges brought on by the recession. However, there are others which
require fundamental changes in the way the institutions are managed to meet customer
service expectations, accreditation, and performance goals. Implementing austerity so that
they can impact the organizational cultural will require by-in from the Board of Trustees, the
president and cabinet, and the front-line staff. These changes will be hard-hitting, but
necessary if marginally surviving HBCUs are to continue exits.

“Measures of productivity do not lead to improvement in productivity….A product put out in
the market today must do more than attract customers and sales; it must stand up in
service”

Edward Deming 1986

4

About the Author

Howard Wright is a proud graduate three HBCUs. He holds a Doctorate of
Education with a concentration in Higher Education Administration from Tennessee State
University, a Master of Business Administration with a concentration in Human Resource
Management, and an Educational Specialist Degree in The Administration of Higher
Education from Alabama A& M University. He holds Bachelors of Science degree in 1993
in Agri-Business from Florida A & M University and received an Associate Degree in
Agricultural Sciences from the College of Agriculture in Port Antonio Jamaica. Dr. Wright
served as a high-school teacher, extension officer, project manager and served in managed a
variety of agro processing and manufacturing entities. He was a pioneer in the use of
distillation waste from rum productions for nutrient subsidization in sugar cane production
in Jamaica, and worked to improve his organization’s push to meet the quality and
environmental requirement for ISO 90001 & 14001 certification.

He had four-year stint as a customer service trainer with West Corporation
supporting AT & T’s business and wireless customers where he was highly involved with
continuous quality improvement practices and training over one thousand customer service
agents in Ohio, Alabama and Texas. Since 2008, he has served as the coordinator for the
Changing Lanes Mentoring Program at Alabama A & M University. He is a member of the
American Society for Quality (ASQ) and the National Association of Academic Advisors
(NACADA) and is actively involved in retention, mentoring and continuous quality
improvement activities in higher education. He is married to Andrea Wright and has four
children.

5

Table of Contents

Preface…………………………………………………………………………………….1

About the Author…………………………………………………………………………4

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….6

Chapters
1 Performance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the
Past Decade………………………………………………………………………7

2 Embracing Quality Improvement: Factors Driving the Need for
Reform……….…………………………………………………………………...17

3 Leveraging a Continuous Quality Improvement Approach
to Improving Institutional Effectiveness………………………………………49

4 Driving Quality: Improving Marketing and Recruiting Strategy……………78

5 Measuring Up: Improving the Enrollment Management Process……………98

6 Driving Quality: Transitioning Students from High School to
the Sophomore…………………………………………………………………...123

7 Transitioning Students from the Sophomore Year to Graduation…………...158

8 Meeting Students Expectations: Improving the Technology
Experience………………………………………………………………….…….171

9 Transforming a Quality Driven Workforce through Training and
Development…………………….....……………………………………………..186

References…………………………………………………………………………192

Appendix A: Presidential Turnover 2000-2011…………………………….….208

Appendix B: The Cost of First Year Students Who Fail
to Return their Second Year.…………………………………………………….211

Appendix C: First to Second Year Retention and 2002
Cohort Graduation………………………………………………………………214

Index……..………………………………………………………………………...217

6

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my grandmother, Vashti James who despite a second-grade
education instilled in me the thirst for knowledge and the value of education. I am also
grateful for the many excellent teachers I have encountered along the way, especially those
who have impacted me in the latter part of my academic career. I am grateful to Dr. Phillip
Redrick, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Alabama A & M University who
provided the inspiration for this manuscript which started as a class project. Thanks to my
dissertation advisor at Tennessee State University Dr. Denise Dunbar for helping me
understand the importance of my work to minority institutions and the need to keep refining
my skills. Special thanks to Ms. Wanda Cross and Mrs. Janet Jones for their tireless effort in
editing and formatting this project and other projects over the years. I would be amiss if I
did not thank my colleagues from the Office of Retention and Academic Support led by Dr.
Leatha Bennett at Alabama A & M University for their continued support, and their love and
determination in improving student success. I want to acknowledge the support, patience
and love of my wife Andrea and kids, Andre, Rojae, Georgiana, and Kayla.

7

Chapter 1

Performance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the Past Decade

Introduction

There is a public perception that students attending HBCU and minority serving
institutions receive inferior education and their students are not adequately prepared for the
workforce or graduate school. The performance of HBCU and minority serving graduates in
all aspect of American professional life and their rise to leadership at some of the most
respected organizations in the United States and around the world proves that the perception
is not reality. However, despite the success of the graduates of these institutions, there
continues to be a public relation battle to define HBCUs role to the majority population. The
financial reality of today’s economy requires that institutions re-examine their role and
redefine themselves in the market place by revamping their public relations strategy. In this
chapter, we will examine the profile of HBCU graduates and the challenges that lie ahead
for HBCUs.

Profile of HBCU Graduates

The role of HCBUs in the education of the African Americans middle class is an
integral part of American history. Historically Black Colleges and Universities enroll 11%
of African American students in higher education, and graduate 21.5% of all black students
who receive their bachelor’s degree (NCES, 2006). In 2001, HBCUs account for 30% of all
African American graduates in engineering, 44% of all natural science majors and 25% of
all social science majors. HBCU graduates make up more than half of the nation’s African
American professionals, more than 50% of African American teachers, 70% African
American dentist, and more than half of the National Black Caucus (Fredrick Patterson
Institute, 2004).

HBCU importance to the production of African American professional is reflected
through the number of degrees confirm annually. The 2010 annual Diverse Issues in Higher

8

Education article on minority production in higher education in the United States ranks the
production of African American graduates as follows:

1. Xavier and Howard University, number one and two in undergraduates in biological and
medical Sciences;

2. Xavier and Tennessee State University number one and two in the physical sciences;

3. Florida A & M University and Winston Salem University, number one and three in
production health professions and related clinical sciences;

4. North Carolina A & T University number one in engineers, followed by number two
Morgan State University;

5. Morehouse College in the number one producer in mathematics and statistics, followed by
number two Fort Valley State University;

6. North Carolina A & T two, Florida A & M three, and Alabama A & M five, top the top
five in agricultural and relate sciences;

7. Alabama State ranks 11th in computer information and supporting services; and

8. On the education front, Jackson State University is rank number two followed by number
three Albany State and number seven Alabama State University.

At the graduate level, North Carolina A & T University is the number one producer
of graduate engineers, Southern University number one in mathematics and statistics,
followed by number three Tennessee State University. Florida A & M tops the physical
sciences, followed by number two Norfolk State University and North Carolina Central
State University. Tuskegee University and North Carolina A T & T top the agricultural
related sciences. On the education front, Prairie View A & M State University is the nation's
number seven producer of African American educators at the graduate level (Diverse Issues,
2010).

HBCUs have also developed a reputation of sending a higher percentage of African
American students to graduate and professional schools than their predominately white
counterparts (NAFEO, 2006). Students attending HBCUs are more likely to attend graduate

9

school, are more like to choose a major in the sciences, and are more likely to remain in
graduate school and complete their Ph.D. They are also more likely to complete their Ph.D.
at a faster rate than their peers who attend traditionally white institutions (Wenglinsky,
1999). In 2006, 29.3% of African American with Ph.Ds. in mathematics, science and
engineering and technology received their bachelor’s degrees from HBCUs (Burrelli &
Rapoport, 2008). Not only are more students from HBCUs earning their Ph.Ds. the
institutions are now becoming leading producers of Ph.D. In 2006 there were 10.1
doctorates peer 1,000 degrees awarded to black students from HBCUs compared to 7.9 for
non- black institutions resulting in HBCUs producing more black Ph.D. recipients than
research and doctoral- granting institutions (Lieberman, 2008).

HBCUs not only affect the students they enroll, but are an economic catalyst for their
local communities as well. A study on the economic impact of HBCUs by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2006) found that HBCUs collectively spend in
excess of $6.6 billion in their communities (62% public and 38% private HBCUs). They had
a $10.2 billion dollar impact in 2001 which ranks HBCU in terms of revenue at 232nd on
the Forbes Fortune 500 list of the largest companies in the United States. They are key
employers in their host communities, providing employment for over 180,142 part time and
full-time jobs, exceeding the Bank of America, the nation’s 23rd largest employer. In many
instances, due to their location in rural small towns, they are the largest employers in their
regional communities and have tremendous impact on local businesses (NCES, 2006).

HBCUs importance to nation-building and the black middle class goes beyond the
number of degrees offered and contributions to their local communities. They are the
cornerstone to the development of the African American community from emancipation
through the Civil Rights era, and have help maintain the culture and traditions of the African
American community. They have produced the black intellectuals who have become role
models, leaders, and advocates for the African American community (Brown & Davis,
2001). The number of HBCU alumni in the black middle class and who are holders of key
leadership positions in business, religion, sports, politics, community development, and
education, reflects their graduates’ contributions to nation-building in the United States,
Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America.

10

Historically HBCUs, because of their mission of educating underrepresented
populations, accept academically weak and under-prepared minority students and have
developed them into aspiring professionals. The institutions are able to mold the academic
and professional development of their students despite not enrolling the most prepared
students from high school. Several institutions have accomplished this through open
enrollment policies and enrolling students with lower average ACT and SAT scores than
their predominately white counterparts. HBCUs developed reputations for investing in
remedial and professional development programs that have transformed the lives of the
students they accepted. Their small class sizes, affordability, accommodating faculty and
staff, and a supportive environment that promotes student success have traditionally been
their strength. They are also known for focusing on teaching rather than research, and are
able to shape their students’ intellectual development, develop their self-confidence, and
empower them to become outstanding professionals.

Despite their obvious success to nation-building, HBCU administrators have argued
over the years that their institutions are neglected and underfunded at both the state and
federal level when compared to their predominately white counterparts. Desegregation
lawsuits and subsequent settlement in the southern states have improved the funding parity
for state institutions, but years of neglect and financial challenges have left many HBCUs
unable to provide the resources to effectively compete with their PWI counterparts. Years of
deferred maintenance due to financial constraints, low bond ratings, reduction in state
appropriations, and declining endowments have left many HBCUs unable to make the
capital investment needed for new construction and infrastructure development.

HBCU presidents through various forums including the White House Initiative on
HBCUs, has been very highly vocal about the need for financial assistance in meeting the
challenges ahead. The White House has recognized the difficulties faced by HBCUs and
other minority-serving institutions. Through high-profile visits, President Obama and his
team participated in a number of Spring 2010 commencement exercises at Hampton
University, University of Arkansas – Pine Bluff, Morehouse College, Xavier University,
Huston-Tillotson University, Spellman College, Morgan State University, and Virginia
Union University. The increased level of media coverage and increase of federal

11

contributions have brought national attention to HBCUs and issues impacting their
performance through several leading national editorials.

The Challenges Ahead

The White House, in recognizing the financial need of HBCUs and the need to
increase minority student enrollment have increased the federal aid available for HBCUs
and minority serving institutions. In the FY 2010-2011 budget, close to $900 million was
made available to HBCU Pell grant recipients, with each student receiving a maximum
allocation of $5,710. The budget also allocated $98 million in new funding to HBCUs and a
pledge of $850 million within the next decade. This additional funding was increased by $13
million through the Strengthen HBCUs program and $85 million for the implementation of
the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Approximately $20.5 million was allocated
for the HBCU Capital Financing Program to assist with renovation, repairs and the addition
of instructional equipment. In addition, the White house allocated $64.5 million for
Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institution Programs and $103 million for a
science and technology workforce program (Whitehouse.gov, 2010).

The increase in federal funding brings a greater level of accountability to the
respective campuses in meeting performance expectations. The Secretary of Education,
Arne Duncan has already indicated his expectations of increased accountability Secretary
and transparency with increase federal funding. This increase in oversight will ensure that
HBCUs receiving federal funds are more scrutinized and administrators held accountable for
efficiently using these funds to transform their campuses. This is an indication that there will
be greater oversight of spending by the Government Accountability Office and the
Department of Education to ensure that federal funds are spent appropriately and institutions
are meeting benchmarks for enrollment progression and graduate employment.

Institutions will be required to continuously demonstrate, through a common set of
performance standards, that they are providing quality services that foster the development,
retention and graduation of their students, irrespective of the student preparation levels and
the institution’s financial challenges. Several administrators and alumni argued that
increasing the performance outcomes will affect HBCUs more than other institutions. This is

12

because in staying true to their mission, they accept a disproportionate amount of
unprepared high school graduates, and they do not have the resources to fund the number of
scholarships to attract a large pool of students who are academically prepared for the college
experience. There are also suggestions that proposed accountability standards do not bring
the necessary funding needed to adequately reverse years of deferred maintenance and new
construction needed to put the campuses on par with their white counter parts. Irrespective
of the merits of the debate, the federal government has mandated each state to consider a
framework for increasing the number of college graduates in the next 10 years and HBCUs
must to be prepared for these challenges.

Some HBCUs are well managed and prepared for this challenge and have
consistently outperformed their predominately white peers in retention, graduation rates and
the number of students entering graduate and professional schools. Why this is not
consistent across the HBCU community is up for debate, but the data coming from several
institutions is indicating that the performance of some school encourages the merger debates
that recently occurred in the Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi legislature. A change in the
management of both public and private HBCUs and the implementation of management
reforms to improve the efficiency and performance outcomes of these institutions would
help stop these debates.

Avoiding merger discussions by state legislators will require that all HBCUs adapt to
the new higher education environment and develop processes that monitor performances and
establishing performance standards to compete with not only PWI, but online institutions as
well. This requires ensuring that funding and performance goals are achieved through
reforms that improve the effective and efficiency utilization of institutional resources.
HBCUs must demonstrate this through improvements in retention and the graduation rates
and accountability standards. This should begin by:

1. Developing collaborative relationships with K-12 feeder school in their key markets and
implementing programs aimed at improving the preparation of high school graduates for the
rigors of higher education.

13

2. Improving the quality of students entering the institutions, by improving alliances with
highly qualified high school graduates through feeder schools program, and teacher
development programs with schools districts in key markets.

3. Expanding relationships with middle and school counselors and principals aimed at
developing college preparation and mentoring programs with the students and their college
mentors.

4. Improving the management and use of the data for continuous improvement, decision
making, and resource allocation. The data is already available, because HBCUs already
collect enormous amounts of data on student outcomes, institutional practices and other
efficiency measures which are reported to the states, the Department of Education and
accreditation agencies.

5. Expanding their role as advocates of K-12 reforms and taking the lead in lobbying for
more state and federal assistance to develop programs at feeder schools.

6. Making a greater effort of attracting students from all ethnic groups in both urban and
rural middle and high schools. HBCUs must improve their alliances with the Hispanic
community, Asian and Tribal communities, local community colleges, and other four-year
colleges.

7. Expanding the relationships with students as well as parents and continue fostering the
relationship with parents from the freshman through to the senior year.

8. Improving public perception of the institutions by strengthening their public relations
strategy. This strategy should focus on promoting the institution’s signature programs and
the uniqueness of the respective campuses.

9. Strengthening the tracking of first year and sophomore students who are enrolled and
those who drop out or stop out.

Change may be difficult at several institutions based on campus morale, entrenched
culture, and the management style of administrators at the respective institutions. However,
long-term survival is dependent on reforming the campuses to meet the performance metrics
outlined by President Obama’s “reach to the top” college graduation goals.

14

The Centralize Performance Metrics

Many of the performance expectations of “reach to the top” are already a part of the
campus performance scorecards and are reported annually to the State Higher Education
Commissions, and the Department of Education Integrated Post-Secondary Education
System (IPEDS). These reports are available to the public so that parents and potential
students can examine school performance on retention and graduation rates, diversity
accreditation, population, and financial aid availability use of the information in making
their college choice.

Although this information is reported annually, there was not much incentive for
public colleges to improve their performance metrics, because state institutions are funded
based on full-time enrollment (FTE), rather than course completion and graduation. This
however, has already changed for some states and others are on schedule to change in the
next three to five years. The proposals from the National Governors Association
Chairman’s 2010-2011 initiative “Complete to Compete” program has laid the foundation
for the reform of state higher education at the state level. The proposal holds institutions
accountable by changing the state funding formula to allocate a percentage based on
performance metrics focused on progression to graduation and beyond. The intent is to
develop and establish common set performance metrics that will reshape the higher
education landscape by improving college efficiency and productivity. Meeting these criteria
requires continuous monitoring of college performance and developing policies that
efficiently utilize available recourses (National Governors Association, 2010).
Recommendations are made to the states to develop accurate data systems to track common
outcome metrics such as degrees completed, graduation rates, transfer rates, and time and
credits completion for each student. States will also be required to tract progress metrics
such as enrollment in remedial education, success beyond remedial education, success in the
first year college courses, credit accumulation, retention, and course completion rates
(National Governors Association, 2010).

Once implemented as a common reporting metrics for all states, all higher education
institutions, including HBCUs, must demonstrate through data their effectiveness in
managing resources allocated to their institution to graduate their students in a timely

15

manner. They will be expected to improve or develop programs and processes that not only
monitor the students they enroll, but track student performance and demonstrate their
progress towards graduation. Meeting these expectations will require that institutions make
an effort to benchmark outstanding peer institutions and create opportunities to continuously
improve programs and processes.

For many institutions this will not happen overnight. Reforms will require the
respective presidents to lead the way towards developing a data-driven campus culture
focused on tying measurable performances to intended outcomes. Several states, such as
Tennessee have already taken steps to develop outcome base completion variables in their
higher education funding formula. Tennessee’s formula outcomes are inclusive of graduate
per FTE, transfers, all degrees earned, student progress at 24, 48, 72, and 98 hours and
research and service (Tennesee.gov, 2010). This data-driven approach requires institutions
to assess and improve their data collection strategies and shift the focus from the number of
students enrolled, to the progress of the students from graduation to employment. This
performance-driven funding approach is expected be entrenched in most state funding
formula in the next decade. The Department of Education through its Institute for Education
Sciences is currently issuing grants through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(AARA) to establish a data system that will monitor students’ progress from acceptance to
employment.

Several state proposals were accepted for the grants and many have already
implemented measures to align their higher education performance outcome to meet their
“reach to the top” goals. A report from the Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC)
2009 revealed that 14 states including Louisiana, Indiana, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio and
Washington have already considered or implemented performance driven funding. The new
formulae are expected to drive improvements in degree completion, retention and on time
graduation. Some states have included performance-based incentives that will also take into
consideration the performance and progress of students taking remedial classes. Many
institutions are also focused on moving remedial classes away from four-year colleges to the
two-year colleges.

16

As the largest producer of African Americans graduates in critical areas to nation
building, HBCUs must continue to focus on growing the enrollment and graduation of low
income and first-generation students of all races. This is necessary because, improvements
in the retention and graduation rates have a twofold effect for HBCUs. First, this generates
significant improvement in revenue over time which increases the institution’s ability to
better serve their students. Secondly, it significantly increases the number of minority
teachers, military officers, business professionals and entrepreneurs, and graduates in the
Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (STEM). Thirdly, it increases the
number of doctoral and professional school graduates over time. Not meeting the proposed
“reach to the top” performances will have an effect as well. It will damage the credibility of
the institutions, reduces the number of capable graduates for nation-building, reduces the
amount of revenue from student enrollment, and increases the number of minority students
with student debt without a degrees. The success of an institution is judged by data,
therefore collectively HBCUs must continue to refine critical benchmarks and market their
success to help change the perception in the public domain.

Embracing Quality Improvement: Factors Driving the Need for Reform

Introduction

HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions are faced with many challenges
which are exasperated by the recent recession. Although the majority of the institutions are
well managed, the cuts in funding at the state and federal level have forced many institutions
to reduce their staff levels, and cut back academic and non-academic programs, while
simultaneously developing initiatives to improve the quality of service provided to both
internal and external customers. Although the reduction in funding has forced many
institutions to implement reforms to remain competitive, there are other threats that are not
unique to HBCUs, but impact their ability to adequately serve their students. For minority
serving institutions, it is essential that these threats be confronted to better position them to
grow and provide highly rated service to their students. In this chapter, we will focus on
these threats by examining how the current and future existence of HBCUs is impacted by:
1. accreditation, 2. the imminent retirement of African American faculty and the hiring of
new faculty, 3. retention and graduation rates, 4. accountability, 5. diversity, 6. presidential
stability, 7. the Board of Trustees and President relationships, and 8. competition.

The Threats Facing HBCUs

The closure of Bishop College, Daniel Payne College and Kittrell College, due to
accreditation and financial problems, is a stark reminder that the future of private HBCUs,
such as Morris Brown College, Knoxville College, Concordia College of Selma, Selma
University and other marginally surviving HBCUs is uncertain. Public HBUCs, however,
are not devoid of these threats. Recent actions by the elements within Georgia’s legislature
to combine Albany and Savannah State University with predominately white institutions,
due to budgetary constraints in Georgia, the proposed merger of Alcorn State University and
Mississippi Valley State University into Jackson State University, and Governor Bobby

18

Jindal’s proposal to merge Southern University at New Orleans with the University of New
Orleans, has put public HBCUs on notice. Recent budget shortfalls have become the
platform for populist movement within state legislatures to join struggling public HBCUs
with neighboring predominately white universities. Public backlash has prevented the
passages of these bills through the state legislature this time around, but this experience must
serve as a reminder to marginally performing public and private HBCUs of the fragility of
their existence.

There are general sentiments within the African American community that the
actions of Southern state legislators to join struggling HBCUs with PWI has racial overtones
because the institutions were not given adequate resources to effectively compete. While
there are merits to these arguments, the reality is that the current economic climate has
placed enormous strains on states higher education budgets. States have been forced to make
difficult choices in order to balance their budgets and commit adequate resources for social
services and K-12. The loss of stimulus funding and the reduction in federal spending at the
state and federal level are impacting the resources available to all higher education
institutions, black or white. However, with scarce resources and a need to balance the budget
within the states, elements within communities who have questioned the existence of
HBCUs have found the ammunition to make their cases, due to the performances of many of
these institutions.

The threats from these individuals in the Southern states are real and they will not go
away unless state HBCUs demonstrate through data that they are excellent managers of tax
payers’ funds, and they can coexist and effectively compete with their neighboring
predominately white institutions. Performance is the key to the institutions long and short-
term survival of these institutions and there must be data to prove it. It is therefore,
imperative that as the African American community puts pressure on their state legislators,
congressional delegates, and makes court challenges, that they broaden their knowledge of
the higher education environment. They must also understand the threats and weaknesses of
the institutions, the internal and external factors that are impacting their continued existence,
and how they can assist in improving HBCUs performance.

Accreditation

19

Most HBCUs are located in Southern States and are accredited by the Southern
Association of Schools & Colleges Commission on Colleges (SACS). According to SACS
accreditation demonstrates to the public that the institution has a mission, has the resources
to support its mission, has clear program goals and objectives which it is successfully
achieving and appropriate for the degrees it offers (SACS, 2011). The loss of accreditation is
usually the last resort by the accreditation agencies, but when done, it has a severe impact on
the institution, the faculty, staff, the students, and past degree recipients. According to the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2010), loss of accreditation impacts the
students’ ability to obtain federal student loans and grants, donations to the institutions, the
ability of students to sit license exams, and the ability of the institutions to obtain state funds
(CHEA, 2010). With over 85% of the student population on some form of financial aid at
HBCUs, loss of accreditation would result in the automatic denial of federal financial aid,
followed by the flight of students from the institution, financial difficulties, and the
imminent closing of the institution.

The threat of closure does not deter SACS from ensuring that all institutions,
including HBCUs, met the guidelines set in the principles of accreditation. SACS requires
institutions to develop a management infrastructure that directs resources to comply with the
commission policies and standards. Irrespective of the amount of the resources available,
institutions are expected to manage their human and financial capital with transparency and
responsibility, and provide the necessary documentation as evidence. SACS in its manual,
The Principles of Accreditation: Foundation of Quality Enhancement, stated that they
"Expect institutions to dedicate themselves to enhancing the quality of their programs and
services within the context of their missions, resources, and capacities, be engaged in an
ongoing program of improvement and be able to demonstrate how well it fulfills its stated
mission...document quality and effectiveness in all its major aspects" (SACS, 2006).

Over the past decade, several HBCUs in Southern states have struggled to meet the
requirements of the principles of accreditation laid down by SACS. Since 1987, more than
25% of SACS sanctions and more than half of the institution who lost their accreditation
were HBCUs (AAUP, 2007). The new rounds of reaffirmations, however, have seen a shift
in the number of sanctions. More than 10 of 13 (77%) HBCUs had reaffirmation of
accreditation by SACS without any infractions, and the acceptance of candidacy of J. F.

20

Drake State Technical College has demonstrated tremendous improvement in efforts to meet
accreditation standards. The results are indicating that efforts are made to develop programs
and implement processes to ensure that the institutions are in satisfactory standing to meet
the criteria for the interim fifth year report and reaffirmation of accreditation. The Presidents
at several of these institutions have lead the way in ensuring that every member of the Board
of Trustees, administrators, directors, students, faculty, and staff is educated about their
individual and collective responsibilities in ensuring there is continuous evaluation of
processes, programs, and structures to meet the institution’s accreditation requirements.

In contrasts, during the past decade, the management of the accreditation process at
several institutions demonstrated questionable leadership and foresight at some HBCUs.
Knoxville College, Morris Brown, Paul Quinn College, Concordia College of Selma,
Grambling State University, Bennett College, St Augustine College, Barber Scotia College,
Edward Waters College, Lemoyne Owen College, Lewis College of Business, Mary Holmes
College, Selma University, Talladega College, and Florida A & M University were placed
on warning or probation. Most recently, Texas Southern University (twice), Tugaloo
College, Dillard University, Cheyney University, South Carolina State and Alabama A & M
University were cited for areas of non-compliance. The start of the new decade has seen
Concordia College and Saint Paul’s College being placed probation and Stillman College,
Fisk and Tennessee State University placed on warning. Many of listed above institutions
have been cited for manageable offenses such as financial instability and audit reports,
issues with faculty support, academic and governance structures, and processes for
managing and evaluating critical operations and support services (AAUP, 2007).

As we look ahead at another round of reaffirmation, there is optimism for Benedict
College’s reaffirmation in 2011 and an amicable resolution to the struggles of Paul Quinn
College in its current preliminary injunction to reinstate its accreditation. Not only is there
cautious optimism for these institutions, but 2010 saw Stillman College denied reaffirmation
of accreditation and placed on continued warning for failing to comply with standards
relating to financial stability reporting. Fisk University was placed on warning for similar
infractions, because they failed to demonstrate compliance with core requirement 2.11.1
(financial resources) and comprehensive standard 3.10.1(financial stability) (SACS, 2010).

21

Financial infractions are not the only core requirement that HBCUs must conquer.
Tennessee State University (TSU) was placed on warning for failing to comply with core
requirement 2.5 (institutional effectiveness). In its latest push to ensure that institutions are
implementing quality principles in its day-to-day operation, SACS requires that institutions
develop a culture of data-driven decision-making supported by a continuous quality
improvement strategy that collects and utilizes assessment for planning in academic and
non-academic areas. SACS requires that “ institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and
institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a
systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing
improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate that the institution is effectively
accomplishing its mission (Institutional Effectiveness)” (Page 22).

The importance of accreditation to the survival of HBCUs warrants the highest level
of attention by every member of the institution from the Board to Trustees to the front-line
staff. Presidential leadership in accreditation is essential in ensuring that structures and
processes are in place for a systematic review through self-study (quarterly, semiannually
and annually), and mobilizing the institution to act on the findings. The presidential
leadership ensures a culture of continual assessment and documentation, and a system of
accountability that monitors the strength, weaknesses, and progress of the institution. This
prevents non-academic and academic units without discipline specific accreditation
requirements from waiting every five years to focus on accreditation. The Board of Trustees
of the respective institution plays a critical role in this process. They must take a more active
role in holding the Presidents and their cabinets accountable through the academic sub-
committees for accreditation standards by requiring regular evaluation of programs, policies
and procedures as outlined by the accreditation agencies. The President on the other hand
must develop a campus culture in which every member of the institution understands their
role and is engaged in the process. Cabinet members and lower lower-level managers must
be held accountable for unit performances and budget should be allocated based on
performance. This has to happen not only when there is a site visit or a self-report due to the
accreditation agencies but must be entrenched as a continuous bi-annual and annual
evaluation plan (CHEA, 2007).

22

Imminent Faculty Retirement of African American Faculty and the Hiring of New
Faculty

The expected retirement of baby boomers from the professorate within the next
decade will see the retirement of some of the most experienced faculty from HBCU
campuses. While this may create significant cost savings to various institutions, campuses
will be losing some of the most passionate and dedicated educators the country has
produced. Many of these baby boomers were hired in the 1960s and 70s and were
instrumental in the development and expansion of the education, engineering, mathematics,
technology, and natural science departments of their respective institutions. They are highly
respected educators whose commitment to developing the African American middle class
that has helped changed the psyche of American society and the perception of the skills set
and professionalism of the African Americans. Many have an incredible ability to motivate
their students to dream big and have cultivated in their students a level of academic rigidity
required to succeed in the most prestigious graduate programs.

Although many of these faculty members are retiring later than usual, early-
retirement packages offered recently by several HBCUs has hastened the exodus of very
experienced teachers. These retirees are leaving with considerable experience and expertise
in research, grant writing, and networking within the federal government and corporate
America. They are also leaving the institutions with remarkable pedagogical skills emerging
from their understanding of the socio-economic background of the students they teach. In
many instances they are leaving their institutions without the opportunity to mentor and pass
on their knowledge to a new generation of junior faculty members.

There are many who argue that the imminent retirement of baby boomers may be a
benefit to higher education. Fleck (2001) argues that the retirement of aging professors,
brings the possibility of bringing fresh ideas and innovative ways of teaching and learning
from new hires. However, finding highly qualified African Americans in engineering,
technology, mathematics, science and business disciplines that are willing to teach at
HBCUs is a challenge many institutions face. The reality is that there is a large racial gap in
the production of African American earning Ph.Ds. in science engineering and business and
that gap has to filled by qualified foreign nationals. While some may argue that there is a

23

need to increase the hiring of African Americans in the STEM and business disciplines,
there are just not enough to meet the diversity demands of white institutions and HBCUs.
Here are the facts from the National Opinion Research Survey on doctoral recipients:

1. Between 2003 to 2008, the number of blacks earning doctorates in science and
engineering grew by 24.5%, however, in 2008 African Americans accounted for only 18.6%
of the number of doctorates offered.

2. The number of temporary visa doctoral recipients increased to 33.1% in 2008.

3. Almost three-quarters (74.1%) of temporary visa recipients intend to remain in the United
States to develop professionally after graduation in 2008.

4. The number of black doctoral science and engineering graduates employed at four-year
institutions was 35.6% compared to 44.7 % whites and 49.3% Asians. Blacks in science and
engineering are least likely of all ethnic groups to start their own business and or work in
industry.

5. Post-secondary commitment and employment was highest in the humanities (86%) and
lowest among engineering doctoral recipients (15%).

6. The highest representation of black doctoral recipients were in education and most were
more likely to be employed in the elementary and high school system (Fiegener, 2009).

The reality is that the majority of doctorates owned by African American are in
education related fields and there are not enough graduates to fill the void left by doctoral
retirees in science, mathematics, engineering, technology and business. This gap has to be
filled by foreign nationals, whites, and Asians in order to meet the academic needs of these
institutions. These new hires are not only potentially experiencing the traditional collegial
adoption challenges faced by young tenure tract faculty, but are also faced with cultural and
language challenges as well. Bridging the language and cultural divide between young non-
African American faculty, retiring African American faculty and African American students
is a workforce development challenge that HBCUs must be prepared to address. Creating a
true multicultural environment does not happen overnight. It is a human resources strategy

24

that has embraced by the institution in an effort to bridge the gap between ethnic and
cultural groups.

As institutions attempt to replace their retiring faculty, they must be mindful of the
following questions:

1. Is the HBCU environment and students they will serve the right fit for this individual?
Will they be able to handle the many challenges they will encounter?

2. Will they be able to mentor and develop African American students?

3. Are they able to motivate students to learn?

4. Will they be able to handle the stress of the tenure process, balance service to students,
the expectations of the community, and time between research, scholarship, and family?

5. What is the level of commitment to serving minority students?

For HBCUs in the market for new faculty, they must be mindful of the following questions:

1. How do HBCUs compete in the market place for available talent?

2. What is their reputation in the market place as an ideal place to work?

3. What relationships are established with leading graduate schools and their students? Are
they able to attract alumni to returning to their institutions?

4. Are there professional development opportunities for young faculty once hired?

5. Are there well planned orientation, mentoring, and learning community programs for new
faculty members?

6. Are there career advancement and management opportunities for non-African American
faculty?

7. Are there development programs for adjunct faculty?

These are challenges that HBCUs must grabble within the next 5-10 years. Attracting
talented faculty who will remain at the institutions for extended periods of time will require

25

a human resources strategy focused on building and retaining talent. Effective mentoring
and training of new faculty and staff is critical to this process. This ensures that new faculty
improves their pedagogical skills to teach students at different preparation levels, balance
teaching, research, and community service, while maintaining their hobbies and family life.
Institutions can help newly hired faculty and staff by creating an environment that promotes
the integration of new and old faculty and provides mentoring opportunities essential to
preventing young faculty burnout and flight.

As older faculty reach the end of their career, it is important for HBCUs to engage
them in campus activities and develop opportunities for them to meet and mentor their
replacements. For those who wish to be engaged, opportunities should be provided to teach
a class or volunteer to help with tutoring, mentoring, and advising of graduate and
undergraduate students. This, however, can only happen if the institutions make a concerted
effort to create an environment that fosters regular dialogue and engagement opportunities
for retirees.

Financial Challenges

The fiscal projections are not indicating improvements in the financial position for
higher education in the short term. According to NACUBA (2010), higher education budget
shortfalls for the 2009-2010 academic years have occurred in several states and the District
of Columbia. It is projected that this will continue into the 2012/2013 academic year
resulting in cuts ranging from 5 to 15 percent and a reduction in giving and federal funding.
It is anticipated that continued fiscal pressure on state legislatures will continue to have a
tremendous impact on higher education in all states until 2013 (Jones, 2005). This less than
dismal performance was also confirmed by Moody Financial Services (2009). According to
Moody’s Investor Service report (2009) on the 2009 U.S. Educational Colleges Outlook,
colleges will be faced with liquidity issues and institutions will be exposed to volatility in
variable market debt. Private colleges, however, will feel more of the effect of the financial
crises than public colleges and community colleges in the next year and a half.

These financial pressures are already being felt at Fisk University, Wilberforce
University Tougaloo College, Voorhees College, Bennett College, Huston-Tillotston
College, Clark Atlanta University, and Lemoyne Owen College. They are among 20 HBCUs

26

reported to be experiencing severe financial difficulties. In addition, the Department of
Education has listed Paul Quinn College, Wiley College, Saint Paul's College Benedict
College, Philander Smith College, and Concordia College as institution that have had failed
its test of financial strength for private nonprofit degree granting institution in 2008
(Blumenestyk et. al, 2009). In 2009, Paul Quinn College still remained below the composite
score of 1.5, but Benedict College passed with a 1.8 (pass rate 1.5-3).

The United Negro College Fund (2009) reported that some of its institutions are
already feeling the impact of the recession and are making adjustments to reduce costs.
Institutions have begun making management decisions to improve their future outlook by
terminating staff, laying off-full time and adjunct faculty, cancelling classes due to
decreases in enrollment and giving students grace periods to be current with their finances.
Many HBCUs, including Clark Atlanta University, Howard, Spellman and public HBCUs,
including Florida and Alabama A & M University and the University of the District of
Columbia have already taken the initiative to cut staff and restructure departments to cope
with the financial crises. In Louisiana, the Southern University System and Grambling were
asked by the state to consider closing programs with low enrollment and low graduation
output as a cost reduction measure. This option is also being considered by Tennessee State
University for it physics program.

As draconian as these costs-cutting measures are, only a few schools have the cash
reserves or endowment to support their institutions after cuts in federal and state
appropriations. Few HBCUs outside of Spellman, Morehouse, Howard, and Hampton, in the
best of times had large endowments or an alumni base that gives freely to their alma mater.
The strain on the general fund and endowment has forced many HBCUs to reduce
investments in capital projects, reduce spending on faculty and staff salaries and lower
financial aid discounts to incoming and currently enrolled students.

The actions taken by various institutions to aligned their cost and improve their
effectiveness is an indication that these institutions are taking seriously the need to balance
their operation with their current financial outlook. The economic crises however, have
provided opportunities for institutions to implement customer driven cost containment
measures to improve efficiency and institutional effectiveness. The extent to which

27

institutions realign their policies, management practices, hire staff with expertise in critical
areas, train current faculty and staff to function efficiently, align essential functions with
available technology, and stream line operations to meet student demands will help
determine their continued success. It is those institutions that strategically restructure their
operations to balance their budgets, and find new sources of revenue through grants and
tuition increases, that will remain solvent in the long run.

As institutions reform their operations, they must be mindful of the events in
Congress. Recent proposals to make cuts in Pell Grants from $5,550 to $4,705 will have a
significant impact on students attending minority institutions. These cuts, if approved, could
reduce funding to HBCUs and other minority institutions by $250 million and could affect
the ability of minority students to access and graduate from higher education institutions.
The approval of H.R. 1 into law could see other programs such as Title III, become slated
for reduction. These changes, if they become law will place severe strain on all HBCUs,
therefore, institutional leaders must begin making additional adjustments to their operational
budgets in preparation for these potential Congressional mandated cuts.

Retention and Graduation Rates

Students enter college from various socio-economic backgrounds, with different
preparation levels and with different goals. The positive or negative interactions encountered
within the institution shapes their perception of the institution and impact their decision to
persist (Tinto, 1993). It is student’s interactions with financial aid, recruitment and
admission, academic services, student services, the curriculum, faculty and peers, that will
help shape the student’s decision to depart early from the institution (Bean, 1980; Pascarella,
1985 & Swail, 1995). It is these experiences, along with their ability to adapt and get
involved in the institutional environment and exploit the opportunities available with faculty
and peers that will increase their commitment to the institution and ultimate graduation
(Pascarella, 1985; Astin, 1985).

Retention is a performance measure that demonstrates that the institution is
accountable for the students it enrolls. It demonstrates to the public that the institution is
capable of making informed decisions on policies, programs, and personnel that impact
student success (Bogue, 1998). Low retention rate is an indication of the ineffectiveness of

28

the institution in managing the progress of its students to graduate within the time indicated.
In the end the institution's reputation is compromised and it loses revenues that could be
generated for academic and student services (Leveille, 2006; Tinto, 1993).

Current Retention Trend at Selected HBCUs

An analysis of data collected from the NCES college navigator of students who
enrolled in fall 2007 and returned in 2008 at 82 four year HBCUs, showed a freshman to
sophomore retention rate of approximately 62% (national average 75.5%) (See appendix C).
Outside of Morehouse and Spellman College only Florida A & M, Prairie View A & M,
Albany State, Elizabeth State and Bennett College, no other institution had freshman to
sophomore retention rates in the 80s and high 70s. On the low-end the University of the
District of Columbia, Concordia College of Selma, Paul Quinn College, Arkansas Baptist
and Texas College, posted first to sophomore retention rates between 40 to 20%
respectively.

Further analysis of the data on students who enrolled in four-year HBCUs in 2002,
revealed an average four-year graduation rate of approximately 18 percent (national average
27%). Fisk, Talladega and Morehouse College graduated more than 4% of the cohort within
four years, with Howard topping the list at 45 percent. When the top 10 institutions were
removed from the analysis, the averages of the other institutions were close to 15 percent.
On the low end, Southern Christian College, the University of the District of Columbia,
Edward Waters, Huston-Tillotson, Coppin and Texas Southern University, are at the bottom
with less than five percent. The six-year graduation rates follow a similar trend. Albany
State, Shorter College, Hampton, Fisk, Howard, Morehouse, Rust, Spellman, and Talladega,
graduated more than 50% of their graduates with Talladega and Spellman topping the list at
more than 80% (Appendix C).

There were eight institutions that performed close to and above the national trend of
58%, but collectively the overall graduation rate of 34% is 20% below the national average.
For African American males, the situation is more daunting. From the 83 institutions
examined less than a quarter of the males graduate within six years. Only 27% of the
institutions studied had male six year graduation rates over 33 percent. Only Albany State,
Fisk, Shorter Collage, Howard University, Talladega, and Morehouse College graduated

29

close to or more than half the male students who enrolled in 2002. In contract, more than 32
of the four-year institutions had male graduation rates of 20% or lower.

There are several debates within the academic community about placing credence to
graduation and retention statistics as it does not reflect the true picture of those students who
drop-out and those who stop-out. Irrespective of the position taken these are the facts; close
to two thirds of students who enter HBCUs fail to graduate within four to six years with
their cohort. If the data from the 2002 cohort is an indication of graduation performances at
HBCUs, then institutions such as Southwestern Christian College, the University of the
District of Columbia, Edward Waters College, Huston- Tillotson, Coppin State, and Texas
Southern University, with less than 20% graduation rates for the 2002 cohort, warrant
careful evaluation of their management practices.

The Financial Impact of Retention

According to Swail et. al (2004), when an institution loses a student, it loses income
it would otherwise receive for the four to six years the students remained enrolled at the
institution. The institution also loses revenue from bookstores, residential halls, financial
aid, campus restaurants, and loses potentially contributions (Swail et. al, 2004). To have a
deeper understanding of the impact of retention on the institution revenue stream, the 2006-
2007 data from 47 public HBCUs affiliated with the Thurgood Marshal College Fund
(TMCF) were examined. The TMCF 2006-2007 demographic report reveals that the
institutions reported a Fall enrollment of 42,257 students, with an average freshman to
sophomore retention rate of 65% for the 2008 academic year. Based on the analysis,
approximately 14, 790 students did not return with their cohort for their sophomore year.

Whether these students are drop-outs or stop outs, they have the opportunity to
contribute significantly to the revenue derived by the institutions from tuition, fees and
boarding. With an average freshman to sophomore rate of approximately 65 percent, TMCF
institutions are slated to lose approximately $225 million from this cohort alone after their
first year. If the sophomore to junior retention gap follows the national trend of 12 percent,
the TMCF institutions may lose close to another 3,296 students by the beginning of the
junior year, bringing the total student loss of almost 18,086 (47%) from the cohort within the
first two years. This brings the estimated loss in revenue from tuition, fees, and boarding for

30

the institutions within the first two years to approximately $500 million (See Table 1). These
numbers are significantly higher if state appropriations are added for each student loss (See
Appendix B).

According to Kline (2010), nationally, states provide on average subsidies and grants
of $10,000 per student each year to institutions. With a loss of close to 18,086 students for
the first two years of the 2006- 2007 cohort, TMCF institutions lose in excess of $181
million dollars in state subsidies for the first two years of each cohort. With state
appropriation per FTE declining by 9 % in 2008 and 5% during 2009-2010, the loss of
tuition and fees due to attrition is a significant revenue loss to state institutions, and
institutions must make every effort to reduce the loss (College Board, 2011).

Table.1 Estimated Attrition Loss to TMCF Institutions for the 2006- 2007 Cohort over the
First Two Years

Cohort Attrition Year 1 Loss Year 2 Loss 2 Year Loss
Retention Percent (%) Millions Millions State
Appropriations

TMCF 35 Percent $225 $225 $148
Freshman to
Sophomore

Sophomore to 12 Percent $50.1 $33
Junior

Total $225 275.1 $181

* Average loss per student instate tuition, fees and boarding $15,213 for public institutions
(College, 2010)

Institutions must also be mindful of not only losses in tuition and fees from student
loss, but loss in investment from recruiting. The estimates in retention normally only reflect
the cost estimates of the students that were enrolled, but do not take into consideration the
cost associated with recruiting and enrolling each student. Institutions invest significant
resources in marketing efforts to attracting, recruiting and enrolling their students. When a
student fails to return to the institution, the institution loses revenue and fails to recoup the
cost associated with attracting and recruiting the student. According to a Noel Levitz report

31

(2009) on the cost of recruiting for public and private institutions, private four-year
institutions spend an average of $2,134.00 and public institution spend on average $461.00
enrolling an undergraduate student. While there is no data available on the recruitment cost
for HBCUs, the Noel Levitz finding creates a basis for assessing the recruitment loss of
TMCF public institutions. Based on the findings from the Noel Levitz study for public
institutions, TMCF member institutions could lose approximately $8.4 million dollars in
recruitment due to retention loss for the first two years of each cohort. This is investments
the institution makes, expecting the students to stay at the institution to graduation and
provide the opportunity to earn returns on their investment.

For private HBCUs who are tuition dependent, the loss in revenue from retention is
significant. The 2006 UNCF supported school report indicated that their institutions derived
34% of their revenues from tuition and fees, 26% from government, 15% from private gifts,
5% from endowment income, 13% from auxiliary enterprise, and 6% from other incomes.
Institutions such as Florida Memorial College, Shaw University, Benedict College, and
Virginia Union University, get more than half their general operating expenses from tuition
and fees. Other institutions such as Texas College, Lane College, and Tuskegee Institute,
receive more than 40 percent of their revenues from government funds, but rely on tuition
and fees to fund their general operations budget (UNCF, 2006).

Public HBCUs generate close to a fifth of their revenues from tuition and fees, but
although they are less dependent on tuition and fees, they are impacted by the state funding
formula which is tied to the number of students enrolled and full time enrollment (FTE).
High attrition rates impact the ability of the institution to generate enough revenues from the
state to meet their operational budgets. Public institutions that are not attracting and
retaining the number of students needed to obtain state disbursement will continuously be
faced with operating budget shortfalls, debt, and liquidity problems. This, in the short run,
forces the institutions to balance their budgets through cost cutting measures such as salary
and hiring freezes, furloughs, layoffs, and delays in capital projects.

There is no doubt that the economic future of some HBCUs and retention are
intertwined. Their continued existence is dependent on the ability to effectively manage the
students they enroll from freshman to graduation. Success requires that the institution not

32

only track freshman to sophomore and the sophomore to junior retention rates, but to
monitor their four-year graduation rates and the performance of students at mid-semester
and the end of semester as well. The impact of retention on the institution’s existence
requires that all HBCUs have established short-term and long-term goals to improve
retention and graduation rates. The process must begin by improving the student’s transition
from high school to college, studying the pre-college variables that influence first-year
retention and developing interactive learning environments for the students. The institution
can only be aware of the students’ performance by developing established progression
scorecards and monitoring course enrollment, performance patterns and the progression of
the cohort towards graduation.

Tracking student progression requires changes in the way data is currently generated
and tracked. Tracking must go beyond generating reports required to fulfill the
requirements of the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the state
higher education commission. It requires the development of an adequate staff department
with the expertise and tools to track all students, developing a monitoring system for those
who are at-risk before they enter the institution and monitoring those who left the institution.
This strategy also requires the development of early relationships with the students and
parents, and connecting them with resources and individuals beginning from their first week
on campus.

Accountability

The discussions on accountability and controls in higher education in recent years is
fueled by increases in tuition, student indebtedness, demands for more financial aid,
reduction in educational affordability for low-income students and the poorest citizens, and
financial crises at the federal, state, and local government level (Muraskin & Lee, 2004).
Increasingly, legislative and public discord with allegations of financial impropriety,
inappropriate allocation of resources, and in some cases fraud, at several higher education
institutions has also led to calls for greater accountability of taxpayer dollars. The frequency
of these issues in the media has created an impression that some institutions are poorly
managed, their leaders are unproductive, and poor stewards of the state and federal tax
dollars, and student pay the price for their actions through continuous tuition increases.

33

These feelings resonate more so during the current economic crisis, where states are forced
to balance their budgets by making choices between K-12, higher education, social services
for their citizens.

Deficits in state budgets has increased the lobbying of state legislators, forcing many
to become increasingly involved in higher education budgets. Federal, state higher education
agencies and accreditation bodies, under public pressure, are becoming more aggressive in
monitoring higher education institutions and are placing greater focus on fiscal control and
performance outcomes. Increased monitoring comes with frequent audits reports, financial
strength tests, the meeting timelines for reporting financial information, monitoring of
research and private contributions, and the proof of continuous improvement.

In recent years, there were only a few reported incidences of inappropriate uses of
funds and evidence of wasting. However, recent accreditation violations for not completing
financial reports in a timely manner and reports of the inability of a few institutions to
account for a substantial amount of money, has helped fuel outside speculations. This is
evident by SACS placing Florida A & M, Texas Southern University, Alabama A & M
University, Stillman College, Tennessee State University, and Fisk University on warning
for non-compliance with principles of accreditation core requirement 2.1 and comprehensive
standards 3.10. This is an indication that financial accountability is a top accreditation
standard for which all higher education institutions must be compliant to remain accredited.
SACS requires all institutions to meet comprehensive standards 3.10 (financial resources)
through submission of annual financial statements and a cycle of audits demonstrating
control of finances and show management of sponsored research funds (SACS, 2010).

The close scrutiny of all institutions by the general public and legislators will
continue into the future as outlined in a 2005 National Commission on Accountability in
Higher Education report. The commission recommends that accountability of institutions be
based on results, such as retention, student outcomes and assessments results. The
commission proposes that institutions provide a better system of accountability and make
information, such as tuition and performance benchmarks, available to the public. The
commission recommends that the federal government establish a plan to monitor the
progress of every student, and that Board of Trustees establish standards for oversight and

34

management of the institutions. It is expected that accreditation agencies, administrators,
faculty, and staff make a commitment to improve their performance by continuously
evaluating their accomplishments and create an avenue for improvement.

Accountability for performance outcome is moving towards the adoption of a
performance base funding formula aimed at improving graduation and course completion.
States such as Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, and other first “round reach to
the top” finalists are moving from the enrollment-driven formula to a performance-based
funding. The new funding formula holds institutions responsible for performances in
retention, course completion, graduation rates and other weighted averages. Institutions will
be required to meet weighted averages which will drive the allocation of funding by the
states. It is anticipated that all institutions, including HBCUs, will raise their performance,
improve their productivity and hold department heads accountable for performance
outcomes or risk budget cuts.

Diversity

In 2005, minority groups in the United States consisted of 14 % Hispanics, 12%
Blacks, 4% Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 1% American Indians/Alaska Natives (NCES,
2007). According to the NCES report on the status and trends in the education of ethnic
minorities, 33 percent of the US population will be minorities with a prediction that they
will account for 39 percent of the total population by 2020. As the minority population trend
upwards, and the number of minority high school graduates increases there will be a higher
percentage of minority students prepared to enter the college ranks. This is evident by the
increase in the enrollment of undergraduate minority students from 17 to 32 percent between
1976 and 2004 (NCES, 2007). The increase in accessibility to higher education is
demonstrated in the surge in undergraduate minority enrollment in higher education from
1976 - 2004.

During this time, there was a 461% increase in Asian/ Pacific Islanders, a 372%
increase in Hispanics, a 130% increase in Native Americans, and a 103% increase in blacks
compared to a 26% increase for their white counter parts. At the graduate level during that
period Asians/ Pacific Islanders increased by 373 percent, Blacks and American Indians/
Alaska natives increased by 181%, American Indians by 162% and by whites 27% (NCES,

35

2007). Despite the steady increase in minority enrollment in higher education, there has not
been a significant increase in the non-black student populations at most HBCU campuses.
From 1999 – 2001 there was only an 3.1% for whites, 6.87% for Hispanics and a 1.68%
increase in Asian/Pacific Islanders enrollment (NCES, 2007).

As generations of African Americans move further away from the Civil Right era
and become engaged in a more multicultural and racially tolerant society, they will be
searching for the best opportunities available to meet their needs and comfort level.
Predominately white institutions, for-profit, and online institutions have already started
exploiting these opportunities as evident in their diversity campaigns. Their aim is to attract
more minority students and compete for federal dollars available through Pell grant and
other federal programs. Their goals are to not only increase the enrollment of black students,
but also the number of Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and
international student populations as well. As the marketing strategy improves at online, for
profit institutions, two year colleges and predominantly white institutions, minority students
will have more alternatives for their college education.

This loss of market share for academically and socially prepared African American
high school population is a threat that HBCU‘s should anticipate and not take lightly. As
African American students have more choices in accessing higher education than in the past,
this threat cannot continue to be ignored. The sports talent drain in the post-Civil Right era
is a pattern that is emerging for academically talented African American students. The brain
drain has started and in a few generations there will be no guarantee that talented African
Americans will continue to be attracted to majority Black institutions.

For now, African American students will continue to be the main source of
enrollment at most HBCUs; however, they cannot continue to be entirely dependent on
Black students to grow their enrollment. Growing the enrollment and maintaining it at levels
to sustain growth and development will be based on the institution’s ability to develop long-
term strategies that attract and enroll more white students and students from all other races.

The projected increase in enrollment growth between 2005 and 2016 at degree-
seeking institutions is expected to be as follows; 8 percent White, 29% Black, 45%
Hispanics, 32% Asian or Pacific Islanders, 34% American Indians or Alaska Native

36

enrollment and 15% resident aliens (NCES, 2007). Institutions must be mindful of these
trends and re-adjust their efforts based on population growth, geographic location, high
school graduation trends, and the needs of the various ethnic groups. HBCUs must be
mindful of the projected increase in the number of Hispanics and other minority high school
graduates in the Southern states and large cities such as Chicago, Detroit and in states such
as Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia. These
institutions must provide opportunities to reach out, develop networks and engage the
Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian communities. In addition, they must also make an
effort to engage and strengthen relationships with the Asian block countries and India, and
Blacks from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America.

Reaching out to other minority populations and underrepresented groups is a
significant part of the HBCU’s mission and several schools have had great success doing so.
Improvement in the diversity of the school population does not change the mission of the
institution, but provides an opportunity to demonstrate that they are educators of all people,
especially the underserved and poor of any race. Growing enrollment requires that
institutions not only say we enroll any student from any race, but have policies with
achievable goals to enroll Hispanics and other non-black students from elementary to high
school. The purpose should be to strategically change the perception of students of other
races from not seeing HBCUs as a black school, but an institution of choice for pursuing
their education.

The process must begin by examining and removing the barriers that negatively
impacts attracting, recruiting, and retaining non-black students (Simms, 1994). Once the
barriers are identified, institutions must develop a diversified enrollment management
strategy with established performance goals. Achieving these goals will require the hiring of
a diverse recruiting and admissions staff, the utilization of non-black students and faculty in
recruiting and outreach efforts, and developing programs that are attractive to non-black
students. Once the students are enrolled, a concerted effort must be made to create a campus
culture that is friendlier to non-blacks, help non-black students acclimatize to the campus
environment, and develops cultural programs to help maintain their persistence to
graduation. This collaborative effort can be done with other strategies to improve the

37

services available to international students, adult and nontraditional students, generation
Xers, the Millennials, and the lesbian and gay communities.

Diversity at HBCUs must not only be examined from a student perspective, but also
must be part of the institution’s human capital development strategy. Showing a
commitment to diversity must be demonstrated through the number of non-blacks and
women in administrative positions and presidential appointments. However, this will require
an increase in the number of talented women, whites, Hispanics, blacks, and other ethnic
minorities born outside of the United States and the appointment of talented non-alumni to
key administrative positions and on the Board of Trustees. Moving in this direction
demonstrates to talented, skilled, and dedicated non- African Americans and women that
they will be able to progress to senior management positions and achieve success at the
institution.

If this is not fully embraced HBCUs, cannot continue to say that they are open to all
people if the data for both students and administrative appointments cannot substantiate
these claims. Predominately White Institutions have appointed diversity officers and
developed strategies to improve their minority enrollment in an attempt to ward off potential
lawsuits and negative publicity. HBCU must be mindful of this, because as the economic
and political landscape changes at the state and federal level and the call to end race-based
public education increases, there will be pressure on public HBCUs to succumb to what is
politically correct at the time. The challenges, whether in the courts, from state legislators,
and Congress will come and HBCU will need partnerships with other minority and majority
legislators in moving legislative agendas for funding and reform that supports their mission.

Presidential Stability

Evan, Evan, & Evans (2002) argued that many of the problems faced by HBCUs are
related to leadership and shared governance. When there is a tense working relationship
between the faculty and staff senate, and student leadership groups, there is normally a
climate of mistrust. A lack of shared governance normally leads to an antagonist relationship
between the president and the faculty senate and a subsequent vote of no confidence. When
there is not a cooperative working relationship between the major leadership, groups there
is normally a work climate with poor faculty morale, reduction in program effectiveness, a

38

reluctance of faculty and staff to speak their minds because fear of reprisal, and inefficient
processes (Evan, Evan & Evans 2002; Jackson & Nunn, 2002; Minor, 2004 & Schexnider,
2008).

Many of the problems outlined above are not consistent with most HBCUs, and are
not unique to HBCUs they are a part of the higher education landscape. However, HBCU
presidents, such as Humphries at Florida A & M University, Harvey at Hampton University,
Johnnetta Cole of Spellman College, Payton at Tuskegee University, Massey at Morehouse
College, Richardson at Morgan State University, Francis at Xavier University, and other
prominent HBCU presidents have transformed their institutions during their long tenure.
They not only transformed their institutions into leading global institutions that attracted the
best and brightest students from the United States and from around the world, but they
become significant players in higher education policies in their respective states and
Washington D.C. The tenure of their presidencies allowed them to build strong management
teams, develop long and short term strategic plans and implement their vision. They
demonstrated the capacity to diplomatically work through the difficulties encountered with
individual board members, faculty and staff senates, student associations, alumni, parents
and donors, to transform their institutions.

Many of these presidents came to their institutions at a time when they were given
the opportunity to develop and articulate a vision for their respective institutions and sought
the input of their constituents. Not only did they have the support of their constituents, but
they understood the higher education and political landscape and hired talented
administrators who had the skills to promote and implement their vision and develop a
management pool to sustain the vision over time. They increased their institution’s visibility
and raised the academic expectations of their students while building partnerships with
corporate entities and government agencies to shift resources to improve their campuses, and
employ their students.

What is unique about these presidents and their tenure is that all of them were given
the opportunity by their Board of Trustees to stay at their institutions for 10 or more years.
The ability to stand the test of time is currently displayed by presidents at Xavier (42 years),
Northwestern Christian (43 years), Morris College (36 years), Hampton (32 years), Harris

39

Stowie, (31years) and Wilberforce University (23 years). There are also other HBCU
presidents at Shorter College (25 years), University of Arkansas Pine Bluff (19), Virginia
State University (17), Benedict College and Langston University (18), Rust College (17),
and Stillman College (13) (See appendix A). There are two public and eight private HBCU
presidents currently serving their institutions for over 20 years with the most notable being
the presidents of Xavier University, Hampton University and Southwestern Christian
College. In addition, there are 6 public and 10 private presidents having tenures over 10
years. These presidents have shown the ability to rally their alumni base, faculty and staff
senates, legislators, students, and their Boards around a vision to transform their institutions
into world-class institutions.

However, the past decade has been one of the most turbulent periods of leadership in
the history of several HBCUs. While there is nothing unusual about the hiring and firing of
presidents at educational institutions, the number of firing, hiring and retirement of
Presidents among HBCUs should be of concern. An examination of the records of 38 public
HBCUs and 45 private HBCUs reveals that only 6 (16%) public and 14 (31%) private
HBCU presidents survived the last decade. Approximately, 14 (37%) public HBCUs and 10
(22%) private HBCUs had at least three presidential appointments, with two private HBCUs
having four presidential changes in 10 years. At the public institution that lost their
presidents, 22 (58%) served less than eight years, 16 (42%) served less than six years and 6
(16%) served less than three years. At their private four-year counterparts 22 (49%) served
less than eight years, 14 (31%) served less than six years and four (9%) served less than
three years (see appendix A). These changes occurred at a time when the American Council
on Education (ACE, 2007) reported that college presidents were serving an average of 8.5
years in office and administrative officers serving 6.5 years, one of the highest tenure
periods in their history of data collection. These changes in leadership at both the
appointment and interim position bring not only changes in presidents and interim, but
cabinet level and other administrative appointments as well. Having three or more campus
leadership changes in a decade creates enormous challenges in continuing the development
of those institutions and it undermines development, long-term planning and the institutions’
competitiveness.

40

The presidency at any higher education institution is a pressure-filled position with
high expectations. It requires the hiring of an individual with a unique set of managerial,
political, academic, and fund-raising skills to perform effectively in the complex higher
education environment. The path to the presidency requires a progressive record of
successfully managing in a complex environment. Prior academic management experience is
a requirement, but as demonstrated by the hiring of successful government and corporate
managers at several PWIs, it is a not a requirement for success. The ACE 2007 report on the
American college president found that 13% had previous positions outside of academia,
21% lead other institutions, 40% were chief academic officers, 23% were non-academic
officers, 28% were chosen internally, and 5% were chairs of departments. This is an
indication that presidents come from different backgrounds, but their selection is based on
proven administrative and political skills needed to effectively navigate the complexity of
the higher education environment.

Since 2007, there are 40 (48%) new presidents at the 83 public and private HBCUs
examined. These new HBCU presidents are expected to sustain their jobs by balancing and
serving the needs of the institutions, be fiscally responsible and operate within a politically
charged atmosphere (Millette, 2004). This group of presidents assumes responsibilities
during the worse financial crises faced by higher education in decades. They came expecting
to maneuver the political landscape and move quickly in transforming their organizations by
growing enrollment, improve efficiency, increase fund raising, increase retention and move
the Board of Trustees and alumni to focus on their vision. This is a feat that has not been
done successfully by many of their predecessors between 2000- 2010.

With almost a third of HBCUs having new first time presidents at the helm during
the past three years, mentoring of current groups of new HBCU presidents to maneuver the
numerous issues facing HBCU’s are central to the stability of the HBCU presidency.
Presidents who did not have long chief academic or operations officer careers or prior
academic leadership experience within the HBCU environment, will require all the
emotional, spiritual, political and administrative they can muster to effectively manage in
the complex HBCU environment. Finding a common ground in developing a working
relationship with the Board of Trustees, the faculty senate, alumni, and corporate donors,
will be essential to their success. The reforms needed to withstand the current budget cuts

41

will require that this group of presidents improve the culture of their institutions by
improving communication and shared governance, and improve faculty and staff
involvement in the budget process. They must hire experienced and effective leadership
teams that can create a framework to implement their vision, and encourage and develop a
new wave of leadership talent through structured succession planning. They must also
establish an assessment and continuous quality improvement system that can be sustained
irrespective of any leadership changes (Benchmark: Howard University & Spellman
College).

Succession planning must also become a part of the conversation at institutions. This
is necessary because institutions are expected to lose some of the most experienced HBCU
presidents and administrators in the next decade due to retirement or firings. This strategy
also falls in line with the ACE projection that more than 40 % of the presidents comes from
the chief academic officer position and this position must become the training ground for the
presidency. Succession planning through the identification of talented administrators and the
preparation of the next generation of presidents and qualified supporting administrators
requires careful consideration by the HBCU community. This is important in ensuring that
there are pools of new candidates both inside and outside the HBCU community that are
mentored and prepared for the presidency. In facilitating this process, the HBCU community
must engage in dialogue around the following questions:

1. What has contributed to the high presidential turnover during the last decade?

2. Is there a pool of presidential candidates at HBCs or PWIs who are prepared to move to
the presidency and meet the challenges of higher education landscape?

3. What roles are past and current presidents playing in helping to mentor the new group of
presidents?

4. Are the current set of provost and future presidential candidates formally prepared for the
office of the presidency and what are the opportunities for their development?

5. What criteria are the Boards of Trustees using in the recruitment and hiring of the
president?

Process Improvement at HBCUs

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Process Improvement at HBCUs

Similar a Process Improvement at HBCUs (20)

Último

Último (20)

Process Improvement at HBCUs