Summary of Evidence for Criterion Four

During the 2003 visit the HLC Evaluation Team identified "limited evidence ... for implementation of an institutional assessment program for student academic achievement, particularly for major study Programs." Prior to the 2003 visit, an assessment was funded through Title Ill appropriations. However, today, the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research has been fully institutionalized funded through the University. Compared to that time when assessment funding was averaged only a little over $185,000 a year, today, over $450,000 is invested in assessment.

5.A.1. The institution has the fiscal and human resources and physical and technological infrastructure sufficient to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered.

Fiscal Resources

Since the 2003 Self Study, CSU’s General Fund operating budget has grown from $31.8 million to $48.6 million, a growth of 52.6%.  This significant revenue growth was driven by a 77% increase in student enrollment over the same period, along with tuition and fee increases in many of those years.  During this period, state funding remained flat, so all new income was due to the University’s activities.  In addition to increased growth in the General Fund operating budget, the University received substantial financial support from grants and the CSU Foundation.  All of these revenue sources have played a key role in strengthening the financial health of the institution. The approved University FY13 budget is $48,566,032, represents a $1.8 million increase over the revised budget for FY 2012. This slight increase was a result of a modest 3.5% increase in fees and a 2% anticipated increase in enrollment. Table 5.A.1 provides CSU budgeted revenue by funding source from 2009-2013.

Table 5.A.1 Budgeted Revenue by Fund category (2009-2013)

Fund Category	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013
General Education (E & G) Fund	39,775,282	39,377,488	37,386,236	38,754,668	39,776,228
Auxiliary	7,055,912	7,582,141	7,369,764	8,277,317	8,798,804
Sub-Total E &G	46,831,194	46,959,629	44,756,000	47,031,985	48, 566,032
Restricted Funds	8,600,000	9,700,000	10,500,000	10,500,000	10,500,000
Total	55,431,194	56,659,629	55,256,000	57,531,985	59,066,032

Source: CSU Budget Office

Anticipated Fiscal Impact of Land Grant Status

Furthermore, in June 2012, CSU was approved for land grant status.  This opportunity allows the University to apply for federal funds that are available only to 1890 land grant schools. This designation provides more resources to the University, enabling CSU to increase its teaching and research capacity, particularly in the STEM areas.  Currently, more than $550 million in federal dollars are available to land grant institutions. Central State’s share of these dollars in the future is expected to significantly enhance its revenues. It will also enlarge the University's outreach and support to the surrounding areas.  These new funding opportunities strengthen the University’s ability to grow and meet the strategic goals for the future, while diversifying its revenue streams and reducing its dependence on state funding.

Under Ohio financial policies, each campus receives a state support allocation and retains all tuition and fee income that it generates. One important change clearly shown in this table is that student fees have become a larger source of income relative to state support during the past few years, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of operating revenue. The result is that the institution's tuition and fees revenue has become a larger percentage of the operating revenue than was the case five years ago. An increased reliance on tuition and fees places a tremendous strain on the campus to raise rates during challenging economic times for both the state and the students. This trend is very difficult for CSU because over 80% of the student population qualifies for Federal Financial Aid (PELL), which indicates a significant financial need among the population and additional hardships, particularly as tuition and fee increases become unavoidable.

CSU, like all other Ohio state-assisted institutions, relies on two primary financial resources for its General Fund budget, namely, tuition-related revenue from students and state funding.  Figure 5.A.1-3 graphically depicts the proportion of state funding to CSU’s total budget.  In Ohio, an average of 20% of the budget comes from state funding; however, as this chart shows, CSU’s state portion is 35% because of a substantial tuition supplement from the state of Ohio appropriated to CSU to support low tuition and basic infrastructure needs because of the school’s small size.  This supplement, totaling $10.9 million in FY13, is subject to legislative approval and control.  The remainder of the state support, in the amount of $6.1 million, is the State Share of Instruction, bringing the amount of total state support to CSU to $17,115,206 in FY13.



Figure 5.A.1: Proportion of state funding to total budget. Source:  CSU Budget Office

In fiscal year 2009, student fees comprised over half of the revenue, or 51%; state funding supplied the remainder, 49%.  The FY13 budget projection continues this trend as student fees account for 65% and state funding 35%.  This represents an increase of 14% in the last five fiscal years for the institution’s students. This trend is not isolated to CSU only; in Ohio all public institutions have had to increase their fees to offset the reduction and uncertainty of future state funding. Data shows that in FY11, Ohio ranked 43^rd in the nation relative to state support for students.  The national average is $6,400 per FTE; Ohio’s average is $4,809. The University, despite the decline in state funding and enrollment growth, has been able to sustain educational quality, through efficiency initiatives and lean staffing.  Figures 5.A.2 and 5.A.3 below, respectively, present the relationship between state funding and student tuition, fees and total state support to CSU from FY 2009 to FY 2013.

Figure 5.A.2.Relationship between State Funding and Tuition (including fees) FY 2009 - 2013

 Figure 5.A.3. Total State Funding Support to CSU from FY 2003 - 2013

As previously indicated, about 80% of students at CSU qualify for Federal Financial Aid. The table below provides the annual tuition and fee structure for Ohio in-state students as of Fall 2011. The table indicates that CSU’s fees are the lowest in the state. This is an important fact in the affordability of CSU compared to other Ohio institutions.

Table 5.A.3. Central State and Ohio Public Universities’ Tuition and Fees

Ohio public University	2011-12 Cost
Miami University	$13,081
University of Cincinnati	$10,419
Bowling Green State University	$10,028
Ohio University	$9,871
Ohio State University	$9,735
University of Akron	$9,545
Kent State University	$9,346
Cleveland State University	$8,952
University of Toledo	$8,788
Wright State University	$8,070
Youngstown State University	$7,451
Shawnee State University	$6,762
CSU	$5,672
Average Tuition at Ohio Public Universities	$9,055

CSU’s Grant Funding History 

During the past decade, the University has increased its research capacity and created opportunities for students to do research and for the University to build capacity in many new areas.  Through this source of funding, the University has been able to invest in many strategic initiatives and support several academic activities.  Details about these grant awards and specific projects are presented in Table 5.A.5. 

Table 5.A.4. Summary of CSU’s Grant Funding in the last 10 Years

Fiscal Year	Amount Received	% Change
2001-2002	$ 9,324,491
2002-2003	$ 10,156,309	9%
2003-2004	$ 12,039,234	19%
2004-2005	$ 11,211,878	-7%
2005-2006	$ 12,538,042	12%
2006-2007	$ 10,139,971	-19%
2007-2008	$ 7,840,373	-23%
2008-2009	$ 8,575,548	9%
2009-2010	$ 9,734,041	14%
2010-2011	$ 10,019,191	3%

Source: Office of Sponsored Programs and Research

CSU Enrollment Trends in the last 10 Years 

Although Ohio has had reductions in state support, CSU continues to grow revenue through increased enrollments and modest tuition increases.  Enrollment has grown 73.8% from 2003 to 2012.  This tremendous growth helped the University handle the reductions in state support and the uncertainties in the global economy.  It has also afforded the opportunity to invest in the education enterprise in areas such as need-based aid, early start programs, University College, and student support services. 

The Strategic Academic Enrollment (SAEM) Plan, and the two strategic plans developed in collaboration with the Ohio Board of Regents--Speed to Scale and Honoring Ohio’s Historically Black Public University-- have all incorporated an enrollment growth strategy that will continue to support the mission and fiscal health of the University.  Currently, the FY13 enrollment projection is 2,550, and growth is projected to continue at a rate of 3% annually, reaching an enrollment of about 3,000 students in the next few years. Within the next three years, an optimal enrollment size for the University will be determined based on its successes.  CSU is examining this goal and is putting plans into place to meet the goal as efficiently as possible. Figure 5.A.4. below provides student enrollment trends over the last 11 years.

Figure 5.A.4. CSU Student Enrollment Trends in the last 10 years, from Fall 2002-Fall 2012

Human Resources

The University, with an employee count that averages 425, has adequate human resources, including faculty and staff, to continue to carry out the mission of the University. Since the last HLC accreditation visit in 2003, the number of employees has grown from 411 full-time employees to 440 full-time employees.  This represents a 9% growth in human resources while student enrollment has grown 73.8% as indicated in the enrollment trend section above.  This important statistic shows that the institution has not increased its personnel to match its enrollment growth.  The institution has also taken steps to reduce its overall personnel costs through an early retirement incentive program.  This program had the result of reducing the number of long term employees and the higher wages and salaries they earned.  Many of these positions remained vacant for one or more years before being replaced with individuals at lower salaries. The "Employee Listing by Department” shows the number of faculty and staff per department.  Table 5.A.5 below compares full-time employees in Fall 2002 to the number of full-time employees in Fall 2010.

Table 5.A.5. CSU’s Full-time Faculty and Staff

The table above indicates that there has been a slight (9%) increase in the number of full-time faculty, but a significantly larger increase (40%) in the number of executive, administrative or managerial staff. CSU’s less competitive faculty salaries and high number of adjunct faculty are partly responsible for the small change in the number of full-time faculty.