viability. The results are shown in Table 2 There were several important and useful findings and conclusions associated with the Hodgkinson and Leadership emerged as the most Schenkel study. important factor in institutional development. Since, however, the study considered the fund raising interest and ability of the president as a dimension of leadership, the case for leadership was hardly surprising. More accurate perhaps was the finding that excellent leadership tended to occur in conjunction with other characteristics that gave an institution a high range Such a finding is easy to understand. score. 8 More interesting but less easy to understand was the finding that less than half of the institutions representing the 41 case studies were rated "good" in use of Title III funds. Of the group receiving the rating of good, 11 or over half were institutions in the medium range. A related finding was the low rating which the case study institutions received on Cost Effectiveness. The study concluded that the "development distance" from low range to medium range. was greater than the "development distance" from medium range to high range. This might seem to suggest that the appropriate policy to pursue would be a policy which leads away from selecting any low range institutions. But the temptation to follow such a course should be tempered by the clear knowledge that, The problem of defining and delimiting Catholic institutions, geographic isolation, The purpose of the foregoing discussion on "identification, selection and institutional development" was to provide the administrators of the Strengthening Developing Institutions Programs with critical comment on these processes, as a background against which they might view the present systems of operating the program. Further projected changes in the operation of the program might be more precisely oriented if those changes were made after exposure to additional comment. The current rules for identifying developing institutions as published in the Federal Register require applicant institutions to satisfy in addition to the general criteria discussed earlier, specified qualitative and quantitative measures of assessment. The qualitative factors are shown in Figure 1 and the quantitative are shown in Table 4. Much attention has been given to and effort exerted on the development of more quantitative criteria for the identification and selection of Title III institutions, which would be more automatically applicable. The result, it is surmised, would be a process more objective and hence more credible. This has not always been the case. Neither has that been the central aspect of the problem. What has been and still is crucial to the erection of a rational and effective system for the selection and funding of an appropriate institutional clientele is the careful articulation of a Definition Identification Selection Placement Prescription, matrix. The proposal in this paper to define "developing institutions" within the framework of the "general criteria" contained in Section 169.11, on the basis of "major mission" and "student clientele served" provides an excellent opportunity for the simplification of criteria. It might also prove useful to think of all criteria under sub-part B of the "rules" as selection criteria. This would eliminate the questionable academic exercise of separating identification from selection, as a process. There would seem to be more value in pointing up more vividly what is actually meant in paragraphs (b) and (c) under "qualitative factors." Note should certainly be taken of the findings in the Hodgkinson and Schenkel study that demonstrated qualities of "leadership" of the institutional executive and the "sense of role" found in an institution were major indicators of institutional viability. These and other indicators have already been accepted as a part of the basic operating philosophy of AIDP, and should the program again become a single entity their application should be extended. 10 There is considerable educational opinion which supports the position that there is an enrollment floor below which institutional viability and vitality are highly doubtful. There is, however, no such agreement for a cutting point on the other end of the spectrum. How can the simple aggregation of thousands of low income and otherwise disadvantaged students in an understaffed, underfinanced, poorly-equipped institution eliminate that institution as a bona fide applicant for Title III funds? This paper advances the point of view FIGURE 1 TITLE III ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA QUALITATIVE FACTORS Those institutions which satisfy the requirements set out in Section 169.12 will be further assessed on the following qualitative factors which will be used to assess whether the institution meets the conditions set forth in Section 169.11(e). These factors will be evaluated over a three year period. Such period will include the academic year in which the institution is seeking recognition as a developing institution and the preceding two academic years. (a) (1) Enrollment. Consideration will be given to the institution's full-time equivalent enrollment, the number of its graduates continuing their education either at a four-year institution in the case of a junior or community college, or at a graduate or professional school, the class standing of entering freshmen in their high school graduating class, the percentage of freshman graduating from the institution. If such enrollment data are in a decline over the three year period, the institution must demonstrate that such a decline is not inconsistent with continued institutional viability. (2) In evaluating an institution pursuant to the criteria discussed in paragraph (a) (1) of this section, the Commissioner will take into consideration whether the institution has adopted an open enrollment admissions policy. As used in this section an open enrollment admissions policy of an institution of higher education means that the institution will admit as regular students all students who apply to that school for admissions who have a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate. (b) Institutional personnel. An institution will be evaluated with regard to the quality of its personnel in the area of institutional administration including financial operations, student services, teaching and research. Factors considered in making such an evaluation will include the percentage of professional personnel with advanced degrees and the salary scale of the institution. |