Request for Reaffirmation of Accreditation

Details of the University’s organizational structure are provided in the evidence files and in the Resource Room.

CSU’s Executive Team consists of seven members of the Board of Trustees, the President, University Counsel, and Vice Presidents of the five divisions. The president of CSU serves as the chief executive officer of the University and maintains a Cabinet, which consists of five vice presidents who lead the following divisions:

• 
  Academic Affairs
  
• 
  Administration and Finance
  
• 
  Information Technology and Services
  
• 
  Institutional Advancement
  
• 
  Student Affairs and Enrollment Management
  

Employee Relations

CSU has made a commitment to identify and meet the needs of its employees to create a positive working environment. The University regards its employees highly valuable to its success. Employee surveys reveal that the majority of employees are highly dedicated to and committed to their jobs. Several programs have been developed to address the needs of employees and create a supportive and desirable work environment. These programs include the following:

• 
  Wellness initiatives have been developed to advance the total health and well-being of CSU’s employees.
  
• 
  A safety program has been established to address the safety needs of both employees and students.
  
• 
  A training and development program has been established to coordinate valuable training for employees.
  
• 
  A suggestion program has been established to encourage employees to share their ideas in the pursuit of excellence for the University.
  
• 
  A career experience program to promote networking and collaboration among employees across campus has been implemented. In this program, employees are given the opportunity to shadow and learn from other employees in different work areas.
  

Faculty Recruitment and Challenges

The University currently has 125 faculty positions. Of these 111 (89%) have been filled. In addition, the University has employed over 80 part-time faculty during the last few years. CSU does have challenges in attracting qualified faculty because it cannot afford to offer salaries as high as other universities in the region. This is partly due to its limited budget resulting from enrollment size and low tuition rates.

CSU has reviewed its salary structure as was recommended by the HLC Peer Review Team in 2003 and has increased faculty salaries based on its AAUP agreement. This review has addressed the issue of minimum salaries for new faculty and most faculty start at a higher than minimum salary depending on the department’s budget, applicant’s experience and market value in a particular discipline. Table 5.A.6. below provides minimum salaries for instructional staff. However, it should be noted that faculty with terminal degrees are hired at higher salary rates than the minimum salaries provided below.

Table 5.A.6: Salary scale of CSU Instructors and Professors

Faculty Position	Salary Scale
Instructor	$37,000
Assistant Professor	$42,775
Associate Professor	$ 52,000
Professor	$ 63,000

Source: CSU Office of Human Resources

CSU has increased retention of faculty and staff by offering generous benefits and total compensation packages that are competitive with institutions its size. Another challenge related to attracting and retaining exceptional faculty is ensuring a timely search process. Faculty hired for positions are selected through a search committee which may take a longer time than usual as faculty positions get posted on www.centralstate.edu and www.higheredjobs.org. Search committee members identify trade and professional organizations and sources to announce the position in order to best attract faculty. Once the search committee has decided on final candidates to recommend, a background investigation is conducted to help determine which candidates are suitable for a faculty appointment. The department chairs and faculty are also involved in interviewing the candidates. The AAUP agreement provides for faculty involvement in the faculty search process. Deans of the Colleges also interview faculty candidates before they are interviewed and approved by both the Provost and the President. The Board of Trustees ultimately approves every faculty appointment to ensure approval of the budget for the new faculty.

In spite of the above challenges, CSU has been very successful in increasing the percentage of faculty with terminal degrees in comparison to the percentage that existed during the last HLC visit in 2003. The University takes pride in attracting faculty with exceptional credentials. The Office of the Provost is the official keeper of all faculty personnel files, records, and documents and ensures that the credentials of faculty members are appropriate for the disciplines they are hired to teach and services to students.

Faculty Level Assessment

Faculty needs as cited by academic departments are reflected in the program review documents that were prepared by the departments and submitted to the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. Excerpts from those reviews were submitted to the Self-Study Committee and are contained in the document "Program Review on Faculty Needs."  The following narrative is taken from reports prepared by academic department chairs that reflect faculty needs from their point-of-view. The AAUP contract agreement stipulates that faculty members teach 24 credit hours (including course release time); hours over this number are considered overload. Currently, faculty members teach an average of 31.2 credit hours yearly. In some departments, faculty members teach 24 hours annually, but in others, faculty members teach an average of 36 hours annually. The number of overloads is one of the signs of a shortage of full time faculty, also reflected in the number of full time faculty needed by departments. An average of 6.5 full time faculty members (including tenure-track and term faculty) are currently needed in CSU’s departments. In certain departments, hiring needs are as high as 21 faculty members needed and do not go lower than two faculty members needed. Hiring additional full time faculty is necessary in certain departments to “meet the urgent accreditation mandates.” In other departments, hiring more full time faculty would enhance the ability to offer courses that would enable students majoring (or minoring) within the department to graduate within four to five years.

The shortage of full-time faculty members has led departments to rely on adjunct instructors: the average of adjunct instructors teaching courses in CSU’s individual departments is 52.5%. In some cases, adjunct instructors teach 72% of classes, and the lowest level of adjunct reliance is 36%. The high percentage of adjunct instructors teaching courses in all departments is problematic. As one department points out, if “adjuncts with practical business experience are willing to teach in their specialized area,” they are assets to CSU’s quality of teaching and learning. However, in very specialized areas, such as “Business Calculus I & II and Business Statistics I & II,” it is close to “impossible” to find qualified teachers; while this department tries to “find the best [it] can, sometimes the results are less than desirable.”

Table 5.A.7: Comparison of the Number of Tenured Faculty between Fall 2002 and Fall 2011

Fall 2002		Tenured	Tenure-track	Term	Total
	Full-time Primary Instruction	53	27	22	102
	Executive	0	0	0	0
	Other professionals	0	0	6	6
Fall 2011	Primary Instruction	50	32	29	111
	Executive	1	0	0	1
	Other professionals	3	2	0	5

Source: CSU Assessment and Institutional Research office and IPEDS

 Academic Quality Challenges

Unpredictable enrollment, budget challenges, and uncertainty in state funding combine to complicate the University’s allocation of fiscal resources to its educational mission.  Although the total number of faculty has increased in recent years, the size of the faculty is still not at the level that it should be.  There are several programs where only one faculty in a discipline is teaching that subject.  Moreover, the percentage of credit hours taught by full-time faculty has decreased over the past five years.  The University is making a concerted effort to increase the number of tenure track faculty.  Budgetary constraints affect the growth and services offered by all University organizations that support student learning and faculty development.  One particularly noticeable and significant example is the Hallie Q. Brown Memorial Library.  The increasing costs of subscriptions to journals and other scholarly publications have led to several reductions in the serial collection of the library.  In response, CSU has participated in the development of the Electronic Journal Center of OhioLINK, which added over one thousand full-text journal and periodical titles online to faculty and students.

Physical Resources

CSU maintains and grows its facilities to support students, faculty, and staff. Old, outdated, and unsafe facilities are being demolished and removed, while new facilities are being designed and erected. Classrooms, buildings, and grounds that are deteriorating have been repaired or restored. Electrical and mechanical systems are systematically renovated through a planned use of resources. There have been increases in the annual Facility E&G budget and funding was made available to execute major construction and renovation projects.  Title III funds have played a key role in facilities improvements. Since 2003, CSU has provided consistent attention to improving the quality of life for students through its physical facilities. The facilities operating budget increased by $1.3 million between fiscal year 2005 and 2009. While facilities continue to age, maintenance and repair items continue, and deferred maintenance is ongoing.  Work continues to maintain and improve the facilities through upgrades in HVAC, upgrades in computer labs, physical structure repairs, and remediation projects.

The campus Master Plan is the guiding document to maintain a focus toward growth and renewal. Staffing has remained relatively stable. Operational capability improvements are improvements in a system’s ability to perform. The physical plant resource operational capability has improved as a result of new generator installations for emergency power in the primary communications facility and steam production central plant. The relocation of the primary electrical meter and appurtenances has increased the reliability of the system. As part of 2006 Basic Renovations, repairs and replacements to campus back-flow devices have improved the safe delivery of water to the public, while improvements in the water plant enhanced the reliability of the supply and treatment of drinking water. CSU improved its physical resources and physical presence by moving its Dayton facility to a new location. A 100,000+ square foot facility on the periphery of downtown Dayton is providing an ideal location for both traditional and nontraditional students. Improvements in the CSU-Dayton facility included lighting, flooring, painting, HVAC, plumbing, and many features that have improved the physical readiness of the facility.

Major renovations to residence halls, classroom buildings, computer labs, and administrative offices have enhanced the work and study environment. The library facility received new window treatments, floor covering, and waterproofing. Wesley and Smith Halls received upgrades to their auditoriums to include computers, projectors, and smart boards. There were major upgrades to campus elevator systems to improve safety and fire recall functions. Jenkins Hall received a $1.2 million upgrade to include lighting, HVAC, painting, and roof work. New cooling systems have been added to several campus facilities to improve the comfort within those facilities. A campus-wide repair of concrete surfaces (sidewalks, curbs, platforms) has taken place to improve the aesthetics and safety of the campus.

Completed new construction and destruction projects, as well as those in the planning stage, provide a continued momentum and positive forward-looking attitude on campus. The demolition of several residence halls, a dining facility, and a science building demonstrates the University’s commitment to eliminating outdated or unsafe facilities and to providing space for new construction. In the place of the residence halls and dining facility, the Center for Education and Natural Sciences, a state of the art science and education facility, was constructed. In the place of the science building, architectural drawings for the new Student Center are completed and ground is expected to be broken this summer. In addition, a day care was built on campus, but has recently been changed and upgraded to an Administrative Annex to support campus programs. The day care needs were absorbed by the City of Xenia.

Other important physical resources recently added and keeping within the intent of the Master Plan are two new residence halls completed in 2011. These two new facilities bring a level of excitement to Central State and support the current and anticipated student population. The plan includes the addition of two residence facilities in the same area to create a ‘village’ atmosphere. The renovation of Emery Hall is a historic restoration project also in this village space that will provide additional physical facility space for use by students, faculty, staff, and visitors. In addition, the Master Plan provides a guide for campus future needs, including student housing, a student center, and educational resources.

Library Resources

CSU’s library resources include the following categories: 

• 
  Books-print
  
• 
  Books-electronic
  
• 
  Microforms
  
• 
  Current serials titles
  
• 
  Research databases and other electronic reference sources, and Seating.
  
• 
  Audiovisual materials
  
• 
  Computer facilities
  

There are more than 100 research databases and in excess of 35 electronic reference sources available at this portal. Many are available via OhioLINK membership while others are available via annual Hallie Q. Brown Memorial Library subscriptions. Films and other digital media, dictionaries and encyclopedias, art collections, vocational and career resources, and learning centers are available through this portal. These resources are updated frequently.

The library receives fewer hardcopy audiovisual materials since it began subscribing to “Films on Demand”, a resource which provides streaming videos through the CSU network computers and provides access the service through the Research Databases portal or through off-campus computers with proper login. As a result, the Library now receives fewer current serials in hard copy format because a number of titles are now available on line through the Research Databases portal. In addition, seating throughout the Library is being improved so that can accommodate more students. Currently the seating in the Library can accommodate only one of every six students enrolled at CSU. There are 73 public access computers and 279 study and collaborative seating areas. The Learning Commons and basement computer lab are under renovation at this writing, facilitated by Title III funds.

Computer Classrooms and Laboratories

The University has provided excellent computer resources to support its mission and to provide students with quality computer facilities that are needed for academic instruction in the classroom. In Spring 2004, the Senate Committee on Information Technology compiled tables on computer system acquisitions in classrooms and laboratories in various academic departments.  In 2004 the state-of-the-art model of the IBM PC was Pentium IV and the Pentium II and Pentium III systems were five or six years out-of-date. The data collected in Spring 2004 may be viewed in the Senate Technology 2004 Report, which shows two significant results:

• 
  Most of the computer facilities were funded by external sources, and
  
• 
  Most of the computer systems in 2003 were Pentium III (or older models).
  

• 
  Year Installed
  
• 
  Building/Room
  
• 
  Computer Classroom/Lab Name
  
• 
  Computer System
  
• 
  Quantity of Computers
  
• 
   Funding Source
  

• 
  The highest number of computer systems—243-- were installed in 2004.
  
• 
  The next highest number of computer systems-- 191--were installed in 2012. 
  
• 
  The number of computer systems installed has increased since 2009.
  

Figure 5.A.7. New Computer Installations 2003-2012.

Source: Faculty Senate of Technology survey

Student Satisfaction with Computer Resources

The data presented in this section shows that students are fairly satisfied with computer resources provided by the University.  Over two-thirds of the students were satisfied with Internet access in classrooms, labs, and the dormitory (question 1 below). Question 5 asked a similar question but in the negative and the results show that in 2012 only 34% of the students were not satisfied with (wireless) access in open areas of campus.  Two-thirds were thus satisfied.  Over the three surveys that were given, the level of "not satisfied" decreased (i.e. the level of satisfaction increased. In spring 2007, the Senate Technology Committee conducted a survey on Student Access to Technology to determine student satisfaction with computer technology on campus. Up to two hundred seventy nine (279) randomly selected students took the survey consisting of 23 questions. Results of the survey were as follows:

• 
  Only about seventy percent (70%) of the students were satisfied with Internet access from various areas on campus, such as dormitory, open labs, Library, and department labs/classrooms.
  
• 
  About seventy percent (70%) were satisfied with Internet access in the (open lab) Library.
  
• 
  Sixty five percent (65%) were satisfied with the number of computers available on campus.
  
• 
  About one-third of the students indicated that among the eight (8) academic buildings on the main campus, the Library represented the place with the highest usage of computers compared to other buildings.
  

• 
  71% satisfaction with Internet access from various areas on campus, such as dormitory, open labs, Library, and department labs/classrooms
  
• 
  46% satisfaction with the numbers of computers available on campus
  
• 
  61% satisfaction with Internet access in the (open lab) Library
  
• 
  46% dissatisfaction with Internet access in open areas of campus
  
• 
  37% satisfaction with the use of technology in the classrooms
  
• 
  Students indicated that among the eight academic buildings on campus, about one-half of the students used the computers in the Library which was the highest usage of all buildings.
  

• 
  68% satisfaction with Internet access from various areas on campus, such as dormitory, open labs, Library, and department labs/classrooms.
  
• 
  50% satisfaction with the number of computers available on campus.
  
• 
  48% satisfaction with Internet access in the (open lab) Library
  
• 
  37% satisfaction with the use of technology by teachers in the classrooms
  
• 
  34% satisfaction with Internet access in open areas of campus
  
• 
  These group of students also indicated that among the seven academic buildings on the main campus, more (80%) of the students used the computers in the Library than in any other building. The figure below shows the trends across the three surveys.
  

Source: Faculty Senate of Technology survey

The University is working on improving the use of technology in the classrooms, library, open laboratories, and dormitories. The University has systematically started addressing the various computer issues that affect student learning, beginning with the library, computer laboratories, classrooms and dormitories. In 2012, the University installed eleven (11) smart classrooms for faculty to use for delivering instruction to students on the main campus as well as the CSU-Dayton location.

Satisfaction with Faculty Office PC

In Spring 2007 the Senate Committee on Technology reviewed the results of the information received from academic department chairs regarding computer technology in their departments. Their responses were tabulated and displayed in graphical form for presentation to the Senate. The graphical data may be viewed in the Senate Technology Committee Report of February 2007. Some significant results were:

• 
  Approximately 51 faculty members had office PCs that are over 3 years old. The replacement cost was about $50,000
  
• 
  Approximately 154 computers that were available to students are over 3 years old. The replacement costs were about $154,000
  
• 
  There was need for an additional 31 computer projectors for faculty to use for classroom instruction. The approximate total cost was $45,000. Four departments needed a fully loaded distance-learning classroom. The approximate total cost was $100,000
  
• 
  Eight departments needed a full-time computer technician. One department had such a technician. Three full-time technicians were hired at the total cost of approximately $180,000 (at $40,000 plus fringe benefits for each).
  
• 
  All departments indicated that their departmental funding for technology were inadequate so the University through its information technology department funded the new computers since departments with substantial computer technology had over 70% of the funding coming from external sources such as grants.
  

• 
  There were 48 faculty members with Pentium IV PCs; others had older version CPUs.
  
• 
  There were 59 faculty members with Windows XP; others had older Windows versions.
  
• 
  There were only 5 faculty members who did not have Banner versions 5, 6, or 7.
  

Figure 5.A.9: Comparative data on condition of technological resources from 2004 -2012

Source: Faculty Senate of Technology survey

Even though only about half of the faculty took the online survey in Spring 2011 and Spring 2012 (see legend FY-12), those who took the survey represented a random cross-section of faculty on campus.   The data in the chart for FY-12 (the purple bar) shows that a greater percentage of faculty members had improved PC computer system components with exception of having a printer.  This may be because some departments decided to have faculty print to the departmental copy machine instead of installing a local printer in each faculty office.

5.A.2. The institution’s resource allocation process ensures that its educational purposes are not adversely affected by elective resource allocations to other areas or disbursement of revenue to a superordinate entity.

CSU has enjoyed increased growth in its revenue budget over the last five years.  In 2008, CSU received its first installment of the Speed-to-Scale (S2S) funding of $4.4 million.  Of this first installment, $2.2 million was invested in faculty, and another $1.5 million was invested in financial aid.  In the first year of S2S, the University grew in enrollment 14.4% from the previous year.  The actual enrollment went from 1,766 to 2,022.  This tremendous growth was met with increased activities in the student support areas such as advising, tutoring, and new programs such as criminal justice.  As a result, revenue was allocated to those growing areas, and the institution did not experience any major negative impacts due to this allocation.  In addition, the institution initiated many new and enhanced strategies to meet this significant growth in resource demands.  The following are some of these strategies:

• 
  Expanded tutoring services
  
• 
  Expanded hours in Writing Lab
  
• 
  Handle Your Business Campaign
  
• 
  Reorganization of the Financial Aid Office
  
• 
  Creation of Access and Investment Educator
  
• 
  Restructuring of New Student Orientation
  
• 
  Establishment of Honors Residence Hall
  
• 
  Enhanced Student Programming and Activities
  
• 
  Enhanced First Year Experience
  
• 
  Creation of University College
  

Table 5.A.8: Summary of CSU’s Performance Indicators

Operating within the CSU budgetary process, each division has considerable leeway to allocate its resources to meet the unique needs of the campus and the community it serves. As a result, the University has been successful in maintaining and expanding educational programming and improving academic quality over the past 10 years. The other overhead expense (Institutional Advancement, Information Technology, and Administration and Finance) has either remained the same or decreased during the same period.

The Education and General Fund is the funding source that provides the greatest flexibility for aligning fund allocation with campus priorities. The allocation of more than 50% of the expense budget to Academic Affairs indicates the University’s commitment, even in times of shrinking resources, to ensure that programs are funded at a rate that does not detract from the mission of the University.

Table 5.A.9: CSU Expenditures by Division

As indicated earlier, another significant impact on CSU’s revenue sources is the change in state funding support. The state funding formula was changed to a formula based on student success and completion, after a long time of being based on enrollment. This change placed uncertainty on the amount of funds the University would receive through state funding support, partly because of the low number of college-ready students who had been admitted to CSU when funding was enrollment-based. The new funding formula which was now based on degree completion forced the University to re-examine its admission and recruitment plans as it evaluates targeted enrollment as a means to sustain meaningful growth in enrollment as it increases retention and graduation rates.

Institutional Advancement and Foundation 

The CSU Foundation serves as the repository for all private external funds contributed to the University.  The Vice President for Institutional Advancement serves as the Foundation’s Executive Director.  There are sixteen members on the Foundation’s Board of Directors, including both corporate and civic leaders. Merrill Lynch provides investment services for the Foundation following the Investment Policy that has been approved by the Foundation board.  The Investment Policy provides some flexibility to manage the investments during today’s volatile market economy. The Foundation supports the University’s mission by providing assets and funding.  The Foundation has financed two Residence Halls, named Foundation I and Foundation II.  In addition, the Foundation has purchased the CSU-Dayton location and housing for the VP of Enrollment Management next to the main campus. Table 5.A.10 below summarizes the major revenue categories for the CSU Foundation.

Table 5.A.10: CSU Foundation Revenue Sources   

	FY2007	FY2008	FY2009	FY2010	FY2011
Rental revenues	$2,617,070	$2,749,852	$2,716,635	$2,823,252	$2,808,960
Contributions	1,086,892	1,314,545	872,499	850,953	692,318
Reimbursements	14,821	49,806	153,476	13,865	0
Other	493,859	416,889	728,922	502,700	624,205
Unrealized gain (loss) on investments	239,013	(497,831)	(974,607)	(45,240)	237,755
Investment Income	439,460	415,032	161,907	22,757	439,397
Total	$4,891,115	$4,448,293	$3,658,832	$4,168,287	$4,802,635

 Source: Office of the Controller

Rental revenues are the rents paid by students for the two residential halls.  The rental covers the bonds payments, interest, and operating expenses for the halls and is thus self-funding.  Room rents were held flat for 2007 through 2009.  Occupancy has ranged from 92% to 100% with a five-year average of 96.6%.

Contributions have declined over the past five years due to the economy.  Specific campaigns have been designed to target specific donor interests and improve donor participation.  Reimbursements were from CSU and have been eliminated now that the CSU Foundation has been added to Banner.  Other income comes primarily from the fund raising events carried out by the various CSU divisions, mostly Academic Affairs and Athletics.  These include events as a fund raising activity and Game guarantees. The volatile economy and market took a toll on CSU’s investments during Fiscal Years 2008, 2009 and 2010.  Investment policy has been revised and the Investment Committee continues to actively manage the investments. The table below provides CSU’s expenses by program.

Table 5.A.11: CSU Foundation Program Expenses

Scholarships awarded were negatively impacted by the economic conditions in FY2009 and FY2010.  Since the investment market has improved, more scholarship dollars are made available.  All other programs have managed expenditures based upon fund raising activities with some timing differences as to when the funds are raised versus spent.

The Change in Net Assets presented in the table below shows the volatility of the stock market during FY2009 and FY2010.  Steps were taken to address the market and manage expenses and are reflected in the positive change in net assets for FY2011.

Table 5.A.12: Change in Net Assets