UpDate - Vol. 15, No. 17, Page 1
January 18, 1996
Three-year grant funds study on education cost

     Who is teaching what to whom and at what cost?" That is the
central question in a national study being conducted by the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning with a three-year grant of
$107,000 from the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education
(FIPSE).
     As the economic climate for higher education has become more
constrained in recent years, colleges and universities have become
increasingly concerned about productivity and cost containment while
still maintaining high academic standards, according to Michael
Middaugh, director of institutional research and planning.
     Within this context, institutional research initiated a series of
budget support analyses in 1988 to examine how departments managed
their resources. These analyses led to the development of indicators
of instructional productivity and direct instructional costs at the
program level.
     While comparisons between and among departments and programs at
the University are interesting, the data become more useful when
compared with those from disciplines at other institutions comparable
to the University of Delaware, Middaugh said. Cost and productivity
indicators can then be compared to determine how similar or different
University departments are from those at peer institutions.
     As a result of the need for inter institutional data,
institutional research undertook a pilot study in 1992, surveying a
sample of 100 state-assisted institutions, which included 16 research
universities and 22 doctoral universities.
     Although the sample was small and the methodology preliminary,
early results of the 1992 study produced results that were both
unanticipated and thought provoking with regard to cost and
productivity patterns across disciplines and institution types,
Middaugh said.
     Middaugh presented these preliminary findings at the annual
meeting of the Association for Institutional Research and the Society
for College and University planning. There was interest in an expanded
data collection with a more refined and accurate methodology.
     Because of the widespread interest, Middaugh was awarded an
$11,000 grant from the Cooperative Research Program of the Teachers
Insurance Annuity Association/College Retirement Equity Fund
(TIAA/CREF) to conduct a second National Cost Study in 1994.
     The study methodology was revised to get more accurate and
comprehensive information. For example, information was collected on
student credit hours taught by faculty type-tenured/tenure track,
other regular faculty, supplemental/ adjunct faculty and teaching
assistants. Data on direct instructional expenditures were divided
into personnel costs (salaries and benefits) and non-personnel costs
(supplies, travel, equipment, etc.). Additional productivity data
included departmental expenditures on sponsored research and public
service.
     The 1994 National Cost Study participant pool was expanded to 158
institutions, including 33 research universities and 42 doctoral
universities. Included were departments from such institutions as Duke
University, Michigan State University, the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst and the University of Maryland at College Park.
     With funding from the FIPSE grant, the National Cost Study will
be conducted annually through 1997-98, with the objective of expanding
the participant pool to 500 institutions. The information collected in
the study will assist academic planners at each institution in
determining how their instructional resources and productivity compare
with those at other institutions and will provide a comparative
context for external accountability discussion, Middaugh said.
     The National Cost Study dovetails with work that Middaugh is
doing as a member of the Joint Commission on Accountability Reporting,
sponsored by the National Association of State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities and the American Association of Community Colleges.
     Middaugh said that these combined activities further solidify the
University's national leadership role in developing appropriate
analytical tools for academic planning and management.
                                                   -Sue Swyers Moncure