DERIVATION OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES FOR
FINANCIAL AIDS SERVICES THROUGH THE
FORMULATION OF COST INPUT AND QUALITY OUTPUT
COMPONENTS

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MARTHA RUTH SMYDRA
1976

IIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 01010 6205

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DERIVATION OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES FOR FINANCIAL
AIDS SERVICES THROUGH THE FORMULATION OF COST
INPUT AND QUALITY OUTPUT COMPONENTS

presented by
Martha Ruth Smydra

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Administration and
Higher Education

 

 

Maw/07%

Major professor/

 

Date W

07639

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
DERIVATION OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES FOR FINANCIAL

AIDS SERVICES THROUGH THE FORMULATION OF COST
INPUT AND QUALITY OUTPUT COMPONENTS

By

Martha Ruth Smydra

In this dissertation, descriptive and exploratory in
nature, the concept of productivity is applied to higher ed-
ucation as a suggested response to the current demand for
accountability. The concept was applied to a service-oriented
function rather than to an instructional function, and was re-
stricted to a single department rather than related to an en-
tire institution. Specifically, the purpose of this disser-
tation was to derive productivity measures for financial aids
services through the formulation of cost input and quality
output components. A variety of procedures were implemented
to demonstrate that productivity measures of financial aids
for one academic year can be expressed in terms of three unit
measures: number of students served, of awards granted, and
of dollars dispensed.

The first procedure was identification of objectives
and their attendant criteria upon which to base cost alloca-
tion (the input component) and evaluation of achievement (the
output component). Because the college serving as example
for this study utilized management-by-objectives (MBO), the
necessary set of objectives was readily available.

The second procedure was derivation of the cost com-

Martha Ruth Smydra
ponent (the denominator portion of the ratio defining pro-
ductivity). To each of the objectives identified through
MBO, the administrator of financial aids allotted the percen-
tage of his annual time devoted to achievement of the objec-
tive. All professional and support staff time was allocated
according to the same percentages. The annual budget for the
financial aid department was distributed among objectives
according to these same percentages, thus providing the ac-
tual cost amounts expended to achieve the objectives. Cost
to achieve each objective was then expressed in terms of each
of the three unit measures.

The third procedure was derivation of the quality
component (the numerator portion of the productivity ratio).
Both the supervisor of the financial aids director and cli-
ents (students) of the financial aids department evaluated
level of aéhievement of each objective identified through
MBO. Evaluation instruments were developed based upon the
criteria of achievement attendant to each objective. The
numerical ratings which resulted served as the quality, or
output component, necessary for productivity measurement.

The final procedure consisted of dividing quality
output by cost input for each objective, thus obtaining nu-
merical values, i.e., the productivity measures of the finan-
cial aids department for one academic year.

After stating limitations which inhibit immediate
applicability of productivity to all of higher education, and

describing areas of needed research and refinement, the author

Martha Ruth Smydra
found reason to consider productivity measurement a viable
and appropriate approach toward increased accountability.

At the present stage of development, the concept was most
applicable to a limited segment of an institution, such as
student personnel services, rather than to the entire insti-
tution. Three reasons for adoption of productivity were
stated. (1) When employed as trend analysis, in a time
series, productivity measures portray past activity and in-
dicate directions of future implementation. (2) They focus
upon departmental activities tending toward greater or les-
ser efficiency. (3) They can be useful in the model building
which will allow an administrator to analyze and understand
departmental functions before he/she commits scarce resources

to a final course of action.

DERIVATION OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES FOR FINANCIAL
AIDS SERVICES THROUGH THE FORMULATION OF COST
INPUT AND QUALITY OUTPUT COMPONENTS

By

Martha Ruth Smydra

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education

1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conceptual Basis of theStudy . . . . . . . . . . . l

Accountability and Evaluation: Focus in Higher
Education 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l

b/Productivity: Conceptual Basis for the Study . . 5
Productivity Applied to Higher Education . . . . 10

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Procedures and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . l7
‘bpfléfinition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7
=QfLimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

II. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Accountability: Concept and Application to Higher
Education 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ’ 0 O O O 22

Productivity: Concept and Application to Higher ,
Education 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 33

Evaluation of Student Personnel Services . . . . . 41
Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes for Higher Education 50

GOfil-SGDting o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 50

Derivation of Objectives and Use of the Manage-
ment by Objectives Method . . . . . . . . . ._ 54

Identification and Use of Outcome Measures . . . 6O

‘\M/96gt Input and Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .’V 66 3

ii

The Financial Aids Function of Student Personnel
serViceS O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 O O O O O O O 75

Summary of Literature Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . 77
III. DERIVATION OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES . . . . . . . . 8l
Goals and Objectives of Financial Aid . . . . . . . 82

I///COSt Component (Input Factor) of the Productivity
Measure 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O C O C 85

NCHEMS Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
IRC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Procedures Used to Formulate Cost Component . . 88
Derivation of Cost (Input) Component . . . . . . 9O

Irpquality Component (Output Factor) of the Productiv~
II," ity Measure 0 O O C C O O O C O O C C O O O O O 95

Supervisor Evaluation of Financial Aids Achieve-
ment of Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Student Evaluation of Financial Aids Achievement
Of ObjeCtives O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 99

Composite Evaluation of Financial Aids Services:
Quality (Output) Component . . . . . . . . . 103

Productivity Measures of Financial Aids Services . 105
IV. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Conclusion and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '111

Discussion of Productivity Use for Student Person-
nel Services in Higher Education . . . . . . . . 113

Implications for Application and Recommendations
for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 120
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPIiY O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O 158

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Lansing Community College Financial Aids and Place-
ment Bud et for 1974-75 (Second Revision, 2 Febru-
ary 1975 O O O O O O O C O C C O O O O C C O O O C O

Allocation of Total Direct Costs to Achieve Finan-
cial Aids Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Direct Costs Allocated to Specific Financial
Aids Objectives 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0

Cost Per Financial Aids Objectives for Students
Served, Awards Granted, and Dollars DiSpensed . . . .

Supervisor Evaluation: Achievement of Financial Aids
Objectives 0 O O O O O O O O I 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of Type of Award to Financial Aid Re-
Cipients O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Student Responses to Financial Aids Questionnaire . .

Student Evaluation: Achievement of Student-Related
Financial Aids Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Composite Evaluation of Financial Aids Services . . .

Productivity Measures of Financial Aids Department
for 1974-75 Academic Year 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

iv

92-3

94

96

97

99

101
102

104
105

106

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation could not have been undertaken and
completed without the contribution and support of the fol-
lowing persons.

First, the personnel at Lansing Community College who
deserve recognition include President Philip Gannon, who
granted permission to utilize college records, and Mr. Neil
Shriner, Director of Financial Aids, whose cooperation and
help enabled me to understand and interpret the financial
aids operation. Special recognition and thanks are due
Dr. William Schaar, Dean of Students, who facilitated formu-
lation of the entire project through his generous contribu-
tion of hours, staff assistance, and personal interest.

Second, I gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr.
James Nelson, because his interest and commitment as chair-
man were vital factors in completion of the dissertation.

Finally, to my husband David I owe the most sincere
personal acknowledgment and gratitude. The continual aware-
ness of his faith and countless hours of cooperation over
several years were for me the essential sustaining forces
needed to complete my entire doctoral program.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Conceptual Basis of the Study
Accountability and Evaluation: Focus in Education
MUch has been written in recent years concerning the

financial problems besetting higher education. Reasons for
fiscal shortages are numerous and often interrelated, but
any analysis illustrates that costs and obligations are
growing faster than readily available resources. Parallel
to this dilemma, and in part resulting from it, is a dis-
tinct pressure from constituencies, funding agencies, and
the public sector for accountability. "At all levels and
in various ways higher educational institutions are being
called upon to 'account’ for their programs and actions,
just as other institutions or agencies are expected to jus-
tify their operations."1

As never before, the university is being asked to jus-

tify itself--its purposes, its methods of achieving

that purpose: its allocation of precious resources; its

priorities: its responsibilities to the individual and

to society. Yes, from both within and without, insti- 2
tutions of higher education are being called to account.

 

1Rodney T. Hartnett, "Accountability in Higher Education"
(Princeton: College Entrance Examination Board, 1971), p. 3.

2Ben Lawrence, George Weathersby, and Virginia W. Patter-

son,.eds., Out uts of Hi her Education Their Identification
MEEEBEBMEDI: 5&3 EEEIEEEEEE'TBoEIder, CoI.: WICHE, JfiIy I970),

p. 3.
l

 

2
This assessment is further affirmed by Browder:
Why should persons employed by the public to provide a
service (and given considerable latitude in determining
how and under what conditions that service will be ren-
dered) be exempt from standing to account for the re-
sults of that serv1ce?

Accountability has many connotations and applications
to higher education. In the financial realm, accountability
has become a focal point for the allocation and utilization
of monetary resources.

A host of responses and techniques have been employed
to monitor the usage of dollars, to better plan its deploy-
ment, and to describe the results which have accrued. One
response to the call for accountability takes the form of
increased emphasis on evaluation: the question being whether
greater monetary input does indeed precipitate more and/or
better results. Dressel comments: "Both faculty and admin,
istration have assumed that high cost and high quality are
inevitably linked in lockstep."4

There is a great deal of overlap between the concepts
of accountability and evaluation as they have been discussed

in the literature. Hartnett5 distinguishes between the two.

First, evaluation is concerned foremost with effectiveness,

3Lesley H. Browder, Jr., Emer 1 Patterns of Adminis-
trative Accountabilit (BerkeIey: MogchEan PEEIishing Corp.,
19:1): Po 11- a

4Paul L. Dressel and Associates, Institutional Research
in the Universit : A Handbook (San FrancIsco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., PuBIIsHers, I972), p. 214.
‘ SHartnett, "Accountability in Higher Education," pp. 5-7.

 

3
whereas accountability is concerned with both effectiveness
and efficiency. The latter incorporates the additional con-
cept of capacity to achieve results with a given expenditure
of resources. Second, evaluation is a process which has
traditionally been undertaken within the organization to
achieve positive ends. Accountability, in contrast, brings
with it a notion of external judgment, with a possibility of
negative result. Third, the orientation of those performing
the process differs. Evaluators tend to be psychologists
and researchers who are likely to stress the input variables.
Accountability personnel, on the other hand, tend to stress
output variables, i.e., the efficiency-oriented criteria.
Accountability aims at results and assigns responsibility
to the institution and its attendant systems.

Both concepts require measurement. Historically, in
faCt, as measurement technology developed and flourished in
this country, "formal evaluation has been very closely asso-
ciated with the measurement tradition in psychology and ed-

6 An important distinction must be drawn, however.

ucation."
Measurement is a quantitative determination of size, extent,
or effects, with no suggestion of judgment. It is a device
or technique which is necessarily a component of evaluation;
it is the process of obtaining relevant and accurate infor-

mation one needs to make the judgment regarding merit or

 

6Blaine R. Worthen and James R. Sanders, Educational

Evaluation: Theor and Practice (Worthington, OHio: CHarles
K. Jones PuBlisHIng Company, I973), p. 2.

4
worth. Within this determination of worth lies the heart
of evaluation. Its goal is "To answer questions of selec-
tion, adoption, support, and worth of educational materials
and activities."7

Viewed from this perspective, evaluation is antecedent
to accountability. When an educational administrator is
able to determine the worth of an educational procedure or
practice, he is equipped not only to consider alternatives,
but to assume responsibility for them, i.e., be accountable
for his decisions and results. To review Hartnett's dis-
tinctions, he can then incorporate the concept of efficiency,
he can juxtapose his judgment with external ones, and he can
assess results in the light of output variables. In short,
evaluation activities are utilized to guarantee greater
accountability to his varied constituencies.

The higher education community, of which the community
and junior college is a vital component, is not immune to
the demand for accountability from its constituents. Research
and literature abound with recent attempts to assess and de-
fend the quality of higher education. MUch of this effort,
however, focuses on the more easily measured, i.e., more
discrete, functions of educational institutions, such as
numbers of students served, number of credits generated, pre-
post measures of various types, and folloWHup of graduates.

There is need to also attend to those important functions of

 

71bid., p. 24.

5
higher education for which the inputs and outputs are--
while no less important--more difficult to isolate and iden-
tify. These are the service and support functions of the
institution.

A general service and support function for students is
the administration of student personnel services. However
operationalized and organized within the institution, they
are likely to consist of functions which support the instruc-
tional program, respond to student needs, and foster insti-

tutional development.8

"New systems are being developed to
collect accountability data in higher education. Most of
this effort, however, is devoted to studying strictly aca-
demic functions and very little to student services."9 If
higher education deems it necessary to establish, fund, and
administer such programs, then higher education can be held
accountable for them. It is the accountability of this di-
mension of higher education, as it is practiced in the comp
munity college, which offers the setting for this study.
Productivity: Conceptual Basis:£grthe Study

The concept of productivity was not developed in an

orderly way under the conceptual umbrella of any single

 

8Junior Colle e Student Personnel Pro rams A oraisal
and DeveIo menE I ReporE To Efie Carnegie Corporagion, Max
R. Raines, director (Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Junior Colleges, November 1965), p. 15.

 

9Robert M. Casse, Jr., Arthur L. Gillis, and John Mtllen,
"A Student Services Data Information System: An Approach to
Process Accountabilit " (NASPA Management Information News-
letter, February 1974 , p. 3.

6

10

discipline. Consequently, numerous definitions and inter-

pretations proliferate. Essentially,
Productivity means the return received from a given unit
of input. To increase productivity means to get a greater
return for a given investment. The concept is most often
used in reference to the production of goods . . .
Specialists argue over the precise definition of the term
l'productivity,’ but it is generally assumed to be a ratio
of 'output' (or what results from an activit ilto 'input'
(or the resources committed to the activity.I
"Stripped to its essentials productivity involves three
ideas: input, output, and process, including a ratio to de-

"12 This ratio is the

Scribe the input-output relationship.
measure of productivity. From another sector comes confir-
mation of these components of productivity: "Simply put,
productivity management is the amount of resources consumed
compared with the volume of products or services produced.
In other words: %%%fi%3 = productivity."13

To utilize the concept of productivity, one must oper-
ationalize the components termed "input" and "output."
Neither facet presents an easy task. Inputs are usually
measured in terms of total dollars expended or total man-

hours consumed. Two interrelated problems are then evident.

 

10William Toombs, Productivit : Burden of Success, ERIC/
Higher Education ResearcH Reporf No. 2 (WasHingEon, D.C.:

American Association for Higher Education, 1973), p. 5.

11U.S., Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration, Report of the Advisor Grou on Productivit
in Law Enforcement on Opportunities For Improving Productiv-
it in Police Services (Washington, D.C.: National Commission
on ro uc iv1 y, , p. 1.

12

 

Toombs, Productivity, p. 6.

13Donald M. Fisk, "Issues in Local Government Productiv-
ity Measurement," Public Management 50 (June 1974): p. 7.

 

7
First, what should be measured, and second, what can be
measured. Further, frequency of data collection can signi-
ficantly affect the measurement of inputs.
Measurement of outputs too presents operational dilemmas.

In the spheres of education and service oriented organizations,
outputs are not always tangible, readily quantifiable, or rec-
ognizable.

Measuring output in the service activities is difficult

because of the absence of a directly quantifiable entity

which describes a unit of service. Consequently, var-

ious substitute indicators are utilized in the national

accounts.
Mark states further that "measures of output per unit of cap-
ital are not available on a current basis."15

Compounding the difficulty of Obtaining input and output

measures are two related problems. First, most data are col-
lected for purposes other than productivity measurement.
Definitions and procedures for reporting data may not be con-
sistent with concepts appropriate for productivity measure-
ment. Secondly, input and output are not restricted to quan-
tity alone: the quality variable cannot be ignored. In re-
lation to input, for example, a simple total of hours worked
ignores the qualitative aspect of those same hours worked by

individuals of varied skills, training, and experience. Some

compensation or adjustment must be made in deriving the input

 

14U.S., Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
The Meanin and Measurement of Productivit , Jerome A. Mark,
"ConcepEs and Measures of ProducEiviEy," (Nashington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, September 1971), p. 10.

15Ibid., p. 13.

component.

In relation to output, quality is no less relevant to
the final productivity measure.

What is generally lacking is some indication of quality
of service. The qualitative factor can dramatically
affect the productivity measurfé if it is not included,
the figures can be misleading.

All productivity measures include the components of
input and output. These measures, however, can be divided
into two major classes, according to the number of inputs
being considered.

Ideally a productivity index includes all the inputs
and a representation of all the outputs to give 'total
factor productivity.‘ This condition is never achieved
and one of two broad modifications is selected. 'One
includes those measures which relate output of a pro-
ducing enterprise . . . to one type of input such as
labor, capital, energy, etc. The other includes those
which relate output to a combination of inputs extending
to a weighted aggregate of all associated inputs.’

(Mark 1971, p. 12). So there is total factor productiv-
ity and single factor productivity, with actual practice
falling somewhere between.

The utility and application of a derived productivity
measure must be examined. Basically, it is a descriptive
tool meant to be utilized in a time series. Productivity
measures are employed in a national sense, for example, to
indicate and compare economic growth. "The most commonly
used measure of productivity relates the total output of
goods and services in the private economy, that is, Gross

National Product (GNP) to the man-hours of all persons en-

 

l6Fisk, "Issues in Local Government Productivity Measure-
ment," p. 7.

17Toombs, Productivity, p. 7.

9

gaged in the production of those goods and services."18
Theoretically, a growth in productivity over successive years
is a way of increasing the ability of people to do what they
want to do. Stein states: "Increasing productivity may thus
be regarded as the keystone to an improved standard of life
and environment for all of society."19 It is with this

broad purpose in mind that a National Commission on Produc-
'tivity has been established to find ways of continuing or
accelerating the historical rates of productivity gains in
the United States.

In a more immediate sense, productivity is often
associated--and confused with--notions of effectiveness and
efficiency. Higher productivity can be realized in a number
of ways: first, input (costs) is held constant and perfor-
mance (output) improves; second, input is decreased and per-
formance remains constant: and third, increased input is
accompanied by increased performance. The productivity
measure, therefore, reflects the cost of accomplishing a I
- result. It does not directly indicate the extent to which
a goal has been achieved, hence cannot be used as a measure
of effectiveness. Rather, "effectiveness is a term applied
to the relationship between the output and institutional

objectives."20

 

18U.S., Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
The Meani and Measurement Of Productivit , Herbert Stein,
"THe Meaning of Productivity," (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, September 1971), p. 1.

19Ibid., p. 5.

20Alfons Van Wijk and Barbara J. Young, "Objectives,

10
The productivity measure may, however, be an indicator
of efficiency, since it relates output to its related costs.
"Productivity is loosely interpreted to be the efficiency
in which output is produced by the resources utilized."21
"Ratios between the two inputs and outputé] in a time series
indicates whether a production process is tending toward

22 In other words, productiv-

greater or lesser efficiency."
ity can reflect growth and/or progress: in itselfjJ: cannot
indicate why that growth has or has not been realized.
Productivity Applied to Higher Education

In a time when financial constrictions are-becoming
tighter and when demands for accountability are increasing,
higher education administrators can apply the productivity
concept to advantage. By definition the two concepts are
not necessarily linked. Accountability connotes an obliga-
tion, however, which productivity can serve. Since produc-
tivity necessitates specification of objectives, analysis
of cost allocation (input component), and analysis of per-
formance (output component), the accountability obligation
to account for deployment of resources and achievement of
results is fulfilled. Further, examinationsof the relation-

ship between input and output yields information necessary

for decision-making and justification of budget requests.

 

Program Structure and Evaluation in Higher Education: An
Introduction" (Toronto: University of Toronto, Institute for
Policy Analysis, n.d.), p. 20.

21Mark, "Concepts and Measures of Productivity," p. 7.

‘22Toombs, ngductivity, p. 5.

ll
Dressel summarizes the impact of productivity and its rela-
tionship to accountability:
Productivity reflects the effective management of re-
sources, processes, and organization to achieve speci-
fied objectives.
Productivity is constructive, not destructive° it is
measured by the relation (difference or ratio) between
the value of the original and the value of the new.
The basic task of accountability programs therefogg is
the assessment of productivity by some procedure.
Although the use of productivity measurement has been
historically associated with other dimensions (e.g., economics,
agriculture), transference to higher education is realistic.
Some steps toward implementation, described by Wilson and

Finz in Public Management,24

illustrate the potential trans-
fer across disciplines.

1. identification and definition of goals--not a
description of action, but the result, state, or
condition to be achieved by the action

2. development of specific targets or objectives which
describe the desired results flowing from the action
. . . every effort is made to state these objectives
in terms that permit quantitative measurement

3. series of indicators or measures of effectiveness
are identified to help evaluate the extent to which
objectives are met (the output indicator)

When the final indicator is related to cost input, the pro-
ductivity measure is Obtained. These steps toward imple-
mentation of a productivity measure are indeed applicable

to higher education.

 

23Paul L. Dressel, Handbook of Academic Evaluation (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., PuBlIshers, I975}, p. B3.

24Robert W. Wilson and Samuel A. Finz, "Implementation of
Productivity Analysis in the County," Public Management 50
(June 1974): p. 13.

12
The use of productivity measurement in higher education
has in fact been heralded in the literature. "I think we
have to consider very deeply the meaning of the words input,
'output, and the ratio between input and output which is var-
iously labeled, 'cost-effectiveness,' 'value-added,‘ or
'productivity.'"25 Vaizey also advocated a longitudinal
approach, i.e., a continuous monitoring process for evalu-
ating the results of education. His recommendation was
echoed by Brown: "To evaluate higher education's successes,
measured output must be contrasted to the cost of providing
the environment."26
Inna monograph where the relevance of productivity to
higher education is examined, Toombs related both the advan-
tages and limitations of the productivity approach, and the
potential application to higher education. The advantages

are twofold. First:

Productivity ratios are easily communicated to individuals

with a variety of backgrounds who hold limited knowledge
of the activity system being described. . . The intrica-
cies of the academic profession, of research and public

service, and of supporting activities cannot be explained

fully but the effects are partially conveyed by simplified

indicators of input and output for institutions. The

second advantage or set of advantages resides in the range

of applications that can be made at various levels of a

productivity activity, i.e., department, program, college,

or statewide system. Ratios of input and output can be
applied to almost any unit sad then built up into mean-
ingful networks (Gold 1971).

25Lawrence et al., ed., Out uts of Hi her Education, John
Vaizey, "The Outputs of Higher EaucaEIon: THeir Proxies,
Measurement, and Evaluation," p. 20.

26Ibid., David G. Brown, "A Scheme for Measuring the Out-
put of Higher Education," p. 37.

 

27Toombs, Productivity, p. 12.

13
The productivity concept is also characterized by cer-
tain limitations. Overall, Toombs stated, "as an idea pro-
ductivity has intrinsic limitations and they are multiplied
by the problems of measurement and interpretation whenever

28 MOre specifically, four limi-

one moves to application."
tations are apparent. First, productivity is not a theory
but rather an approach to theory or a descriptive tool. Sec-
ond, productivity is not monistic: it lacks a single standard
and therefore cannot be used to measure efficiency of a total
system. Third, productivity measures are point-by-point
measures, thus treating the dynamics of change poorly, and
meaning that all information is treated‘pg post facto. Anal-
ysis is a captive Of past events. Finally, the use of an
arithmetic ratio imposes a requirement often overlooked. That
is, the nature of input and output must remain stable during
the period of study. In education, improved quality in either
component is seldom fully accounted for.
Toombs also details specific objections to the pursuit

of a productivity model in education:

(1) overemphasis on direct instruction to the exclusion

of other functions of the university; (2) adoption of

faculty time as a proxy for all the elements of instruc-

tional inputs: (3) acceptance of such fragmentary mea-

sures as credit-hours to indicate outputs that are much

more complex; (4) inattention to the process of learning;

(5) public usage of measures that reflect almost none of

the improvement of quality that has occurred in educa-

tional prac§§ce; and (6) disregard for professional in-
dependence.

 

28Ibid., pp. 12-13.

291bid., p. 19.

14

Nevertheless, application of the model is justified if
the potential benefits resolve the objections and outweigh
the limitations. "Taken together these conditions do not deny
the possibility that productivity analysis and adjustment can
fit higher education."30 They do indicate that some essential
thinking and adjustment be done. Some of this thinking and
some potential benefits of the productivity model were de-

scribed by Dressel

(1) . . . to furnish unambiguous, highly specified, quan-
titative description of the major elements in an insti-
tutional system or subsystem and of the interrelationships
which prevail among these major elements.

(2) . . . to provide more reliable means of predicting
outcomes of actions which change one or more variables
in the system.

(3) . . . to make possible the optimum use of resources
according to a set of carefully specified output objec-
tives for Slsector of the institution or the entire in-
stitution.

Dressel continues his discussion of model building by
specifying five steps which must be undertaken. While the
procedures derived in this study to compute productivity
measures may not fulfill every step, they do satisfy enough
requirements that the potential of incorporating productivity
into building of a descriptive model is demonstrated.

The basic steps are five. First, all major input and
output variables of interest must be identified and de-
fined. Second, the organizational structure and pro-
cesses by which outputs are produced from inputs must be

described. Third, significant environmental variables,
additional to the input and output variables, must be

 

30Ibid.

31Dressel and Associates, Institutional Research in the

15 ,
identified. Fourth, functional relationships (in the
form of equations) among all identified variables must
be established. Fifth, the model should be tested, pre-
ferably with historical data, to see if changes in the
values of independent variables produce expected or at 32
reasonable changes in the values of dependent variables.

The ultimate advantage of model building, therefore,
goes beyond understanding the essentials of complex systems,
and allows an administrator to try out alternative programs
vicariously before actually committing expensive resources
to courses of action. In concluding the discussion of pro-
ductivity applied to higher education, four principles emerge
which ascertain its utility as a tool to provide increased
accountability.

First, while productivity measures may be subject to
inconclusive or inaccurate interpretation on a large scale,
i.e., when cOnstructed to reflect 'total-factor,' they are
still useful as indicators for definite segments of the
higher education setting.

The input-output approach has great value as an analytical
tool where objectives are reasonably clear, the processes
understood, and the activities subject to control. At

the departmental or proggam level, it can be applied to
considerable advantage.

Secondly, the productivity model can be employed as a
guide to adjust monetary and nonmonetary inputs. It helps
distinguish adjustments for their consequences and encourages
precise delineation of costs and results. For the adminis-

trator who.needs to request, justify, manage, and report

 

32Ibid., pp. 237-38.
33Toombs, ProdUctivity, p. 43.

16
funds, and who has to account for results of his department,
the model offers definite potential.

Thirdly, the model can be utilized to account for the
variable of quality. It may be, at present, that quality
is an unrecorded output of higher education, which, when in-
cluded in the derivation of a productivity measure, may dir-
ectly increase production. By measuring the quality output
in relation to cost input, one can also examine the assumption
that increased costs yield increaSed quality, an assumption
that is no longer automatically asserted by availability of
unlimited financial input.

Finally, though indices of cost and quality may not be
statistically perfeCt, proxies can be derived which are at
least consistent and useful. "If the proxies operationally
assist resource allocation, if decision-making is better with
the proxies than without, this alone is justification for
their adoption."34 Enthoven agrees with this assessment:

. . . one should not expect to find an all-embracing cri-
terion of value added or effectiveness, and such criteria
aren't necessary for improved allocation decisions. Sims
ple, crude indices can be very useful. This and similar
experiences inspired the motgg, 'It is better to be roughly
right than preCISely wrong.’

Purpose of the Study

It is the purpose of this study to construct the comp

ponents of a single-factor productivity model which will

 

34Lawrence et al., ed., Outputs of Higher Education,
Brown, "Scheme," p. 29.

35Ibid., Alain C. Enthoven, "Measures of the Outputs of
.Higher Education: Some Practical Suggestions for their Devel-
opment and Use," pp. 52-53.

17
demonstrate the ratio (i.e., productivity measure) between
the qualitative output and the cost inputs needed to achieve
or perform a function of student personnel services. The
specific function of student personnel services selected for
illustration is financial aids, and will be analyzed both in,
terms of overall and individual objectives, and in terms of
attendant costs and activities necessary to achieve them.
The components will be applied for one time period, hence
only the productivity measures are obtained and a demonstra-

tion of the model in a time series is not attempted.

Design of the Study
This study is descriptive and exploratory in nature.
Historical and contemporary data for the student personnel
division of Lansing Community College is used in the formu-

1.36 Three discrete processes

lation of a productivity mode
have been undertaken which were necessary components of the
final model: delineation of objectives for the financial aids
department (utilizing the management-by-objectives technique),
cost analysis of the financial aids budget, and construction
and administering of an instrument to measure the quality
output of the financial aids department. A comprehensive

review of the procedures and methodology is in Chapter III.

Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used for

the purposes of this study.

 

36Request and permission to use Lansing Community College
data are included in Appendix A.

l8

Accountability - "an Obligation of the college to answer
to its constituency for carrying out delegated responsibili-
ties; the obligation of members of the college to produce and
account for results, in terms of objectives or assignments I
which have been delegated."37

Evaluation - the process of identifying, collecting,
and examining performance data, i.e., measures of activity
and of impact, in order to assist in the determination of
worth or merit of a specified activity.

Financial Aids - a function of student personnel ser-
vices which administers and awards loans, scholarships, and
grants so that students lacking adequate financial resources
may be assisted in the pursuit of higher education.

Epglp - broad, long-range, generalized intended ends
or outputs of a specific system, here refers to goals of a
student personnel function, i.e., financial aids.

Ipppp - the tangible and intangible resources entered
into a system for conversion to desired output. Here, all
resources translated into monetary terms (costs) in order to
achieve specified objectives.

A.Management-by-Objectives (MBO) - the process "whereby
the superior and the subordinate managers of an organization
jointly define its common goals, define each other's major

areas of responsibility in terms of the results expected of

 

37John E. Roueche, George.A. Baker III, and Richard L.

Brownell, Accountabilit and the Communit Colle e Directions
for the 70's (Washington, D.C.: IEerican Issociation 0? Comp

muniEy and Junior Colleges, 1972), p. 23.

l9
him and use these measures as guides for operating the unit
and assessing the contribution of each of its members."38
Here, refers to the method used to establish departmental ob-
jectives at Lansing Community College.

Objectives - short-range, specified ends of the compon-
ents of a system, here the financial aids function of student
personnel services.

Outcome - used interchangeably with Output.

Output - measurable product or result of activities de-
signed to achieve specified objectives, and attributable to
designated inputs. Here, output primarily refers to quality
and incorpOrates the notion of quantity where specific levels
of achievement have been designated within financial aids'
objectives criteria.

Productivity - a descriptive technique in which a mea-
surable output of a system is related to a measurable unit of
input. Two classes of productivity exist. The first, single-
factor productivity, relates output to one type of input.

Its productivity measure reflects the joint effect of a variety
of factors. The second class, termed multifactor or total-
factor, relates output to a combination of inputs.

ProduCtivity Measure - the arithmetic ratio relating
outputs (goods and services) to one or more of the inputs
(labor, capital, energy, etc.) which were associated with

that output; here, quality output compared to cost input.

38George S. Odiorne, Mana ement b Ob ectives (New York:
Pitman Publishing Company, 1955), p. 55.

 

20

Quality - the degree to which a specified objective has
been achieved, as determined both by measures of activity (pri-
marily quantitative indicators), and by measures of impact
(primarily qualitative indicatOrs). Here, refers to the
efficiency and effectiveness of the financial aids office
during one year of operation and should not be construed to
reflect the longitudinal effect(s) of financial aids services
on students.

Student Personnel Services - a series of functions un-
dertaken by the college or university designed both to support
the instructional program, to respond to student needs collec-
tively and individually, and to foster institutional develop-

ment.

Limitations of the Study
1. The objectives delineated in this study for the

function of financial aids have been derived through appli-
cation of the management-by-objectives technique. No attempt
has been made to evaluate the merits of the actual objectives.
That is, while the actual objectives may be realized at a
high level of achievement, they may or may not have merit or
worth for students or for the institution.

2. The data utilized in deriving productivity measures
are based upon the administration of financial aids at Lansing
Community College fer a period of one academic year (1974-1975).
Cost data, in particular, are based upon the operational budget
of just that department for that year.

3. The productivity procedures in this study are char-

21
acterized by two conditions. First, they are applied at only
one point in time, i.e., to one year of operation. The devel-
opment of productivity measures over a time series, therefore,
remains an uncompleted aspect, not within the scope of the
present study. Second, the model is designed to be single-
factor, which utilizes quality output and cost input; the
productivity measure reflects joint effects of a variety of
inputs which have been expressed solely in cost terms.

4. The evaluation instrument used to ascertain the
quality output component is subject to limitation. It has
not been subjected to tests of reliability and validity. The
instrument was constructed for purposes of a descriptive ex-
ploratory study and should not be employed for empirical pur—

pose without further refinement and testing.

Organization of the Study

The first chapter of the study contains discussion of
the general setting in higher education and the concepts re-
lated to the problem being considered. It also contains a
statement of purpose, overview of procedures and methodology,
definition of terms, and limitations of the study. Chapter II
consists of a review of selected literature relevant to the
study. Procedures developed and derivation of the productiv-
ity measures are presented in Chapter III. The summary,
conclusion and findings, implications, and recommendations

for further research comprise Chapter IV.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

In this chapter selected literature related to the
construction of a productivity model for student personnel
services is reviewed. Two broad concepts, accountability
and productivity, are the respective subjects of the first
two sections. Following are four sections concerned with
components and techniques relevant to the proposed model.
Topics of these sections are, first, evaluation of student
personnel services; second, goal-setting, delineation of
objectives (with emphasis given to management-by-objectives),
and outcome measurement: third, costing techniques: and
fourth, the financial aids function of student personnel
services. The final section of this chapter is a discussion

of the literature reviewed.

AccountabLLLEy;
Concept and Application to Higher Education

The literature of higher education is replete with
references to accountability. A comprehensive review of
accountability is beyond the scope of this paper and indeed .
would be superfluous to the primary purpose of the study.
It is appropriate, however, to examine the concept from three
perspectives: reasons for the contemporary focus on accounta-
bility, definition of accountability, and the impact of

22

23
accountability on higher education. The first and second of
these perspectives are examined simultaneously in the following.
The concept of accountability has been a part of the
American educational scene for many years.
The educational libraries in the United States, in the
universities, and in our state and national agencies of
Government, have in them numerous reports of close and
critical examinatiins of our educational systems and
their performance.

Historically, however, it has been obscured by the doctrine

of what Wilson has called educational determinism, with its

consequent acceptance of student failure. I
Simply stated, educational determinism is the belief that
people have a predetermined capacity for learning, a ca-
pacity best defined by intelligence quotient. This being
the case, it is reasonable and acceptable that an in-
creasing number of students will fail as they climb the
educational ladder. Or, to put it in the language of
Darwinism, in the educational jungle only the fittest sur-
vive. Until recently this belief in a limited and pre-
determined capacity tozlearn precluded the idea of accoun-
tability for learning.

Currently, this belief in educational determinism is
being rejected by growing numbers of educators. Given the
re-examination of basic beliefs about learning and the evi-
dence of many studies, a re-awakened interest in accountability

has taken place. Furthermore, a number of social, economic,

 

1George M. Delgrosso, ed., Accountabilit in the Communit
College, Proceedings of the Secona InnuEI InIernaEionEI Sump
mer Institute (Ontario: Lambton College, 19-20 August 1971),

S.V. Martorana, "Accountability at the State and Provincial
Level," p. 42.

2John E. Roueche, George A. Baker III, and Richard L.
Brownell, Accountabilit and the Communit Colle e Directions
for the 70’s, wiEh a Forewora 5y RicHard E. WiIson (Wasfiington,
D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges,
1972), pp. 1-2.

24
and political factors contribute to the reemergence of accoun-
tability as a fundamental concept to be reckoned with in
American education. .
Browder cited two major reasons why accountability is
currently being linked with education. First, the pressures
for change--from political, social and eConomic sectors--are
demanding responsiveness to perceived problems. Second, the
.advances (primarily technical) within and outside education
have developed to a point where accountability patterns seem
feasible, at least worthy of trying in the absence of other
visible measures of success, or suitable explanations for
what is happening.3
With a focus upon higher education, Hartnett presented
two dominant reasons for the current demand for accountability.
One he identified as the growth of multi-institutional coor-
dinating agencies. In the early 60's many states realized
that voluntary planning and coordinating efforts would not
be sufficient to meet the challenges of the coming decade.
At that time several states either enacted legislation
creating mandatory coordinating and planning agencies or
strengthened the power of existing ones. The trend was
thus set in motion, and the implications for statewide 4
evaluation and systematic accounting procedures were clear.

The second reason Hartnett identified is the increasing

financial problems confrOnting higher education, "a fiscal

 

....3Lesley,H. Browder, Jr., An Administrator's Handbook on

Educational Accountabilit (ArIington, va.: American Associ-
ation of ScHool KdEInistrators, 1973), PP. 12-13.

4Rodney T. Hartnett, "Accountability in Higher Education"
(Princeton: College Entrance Examination Board, 1971), p. 1.

‘

25
shortage of growing urgency in the past five years that has
recently reached crisis proportions."5 Hartnett conceded that
the causes of the financial crisis are many and complex, but
attributed the major cause to a credibility gap, defined as
"a growing feeling of mistrust on the part of higher educap
tion's relevant publics (be they alumni, parents of school-
age children, or whatever) about what higher education is
doing or 'producing.'"6 For these major reasons, he felt,
higher education is being called to account.
In the introduction to Outputs of Higher Educapipp;

Their Identification, Measurement, and Evaluation, a study
prior to Hartnett's, his latter reason was cited in similar
terms.

Self examination has been forced upon our institutions

of higher education by alienated students, disaffected

faculty, dissatisfied legislators, disenchanted alumni,

and disappointed parents who are challenging the univer-

sity. . . Both internally and externally, the university

is being called to accountability.

To the problem of accountability, add the difficult prob-
lem of financing higher education.

Roueche et al., also mentioned what Hartnett labeled
the "credibility gap."

The multimillion dollar system is now imperiled by its
own dramatic failure to produce effective and pertinent
learning; the nation's welfare is threatened by the fact
that education seems incapable of meeting the needs of
increasingly large numbers of citizens. . . Disenchanted

 

5Ibid., p. 2.
6

Ibid.

7Ben Lawrence, George Weathersby, and Virginia W. Patter-
son, eds.,.Out uts of Hi er Education Their Identification

   

p. l.

26
taxpayers, considering the vast resources already lav-
ished upon education, are beginngng to wonder what they
are getting for their tax money.

In other publications describing the call for accountap
bility, similar reasons were delineated. Young9 listed:
Americans' dissatisfaction with school Costs, concern for low
pupil achievement, and a recognition that education is big

business. Casse et al.,10

cited budgetary restrictions, inr
flation, and frequent demands for empirical studies of oper~
ation.

Miartoranall

enumerated current pressures and develop-
ments which gave rise to the concern for accountability. In-
cluded are: first, a shifting sense of purpose for education,
especially higher education; second, student activism: third,
the recent movement of faculty toward collective bargaining:
fourth, the emergence and refinement of measuring technique
and devices; and finally, scarcity of funds.

While there seems to be general and repeated agreement

about the need for accountability, there is no consensus

 

8
p. 3.

Roueche et al., Accountability and the Community College,

9Stephen Young, "Accountability and Evaluation in the 70's:
An Overview," paper presented at the 57th annual meeting of
the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, 27 De-
cember 1971.

10Robert M. Casse, Jr., Arthur L. Gillis, and John Mullen,
"A Student Services Data Information System: An Approach to
Process Accountabilit " (NASPA Management Information News-
letter, February 1974 , p. 3.

11Delgrosso, Accountabilit 'in the Communit Colle e, ed.,
Martorana, "AccounEaBiIiEy aE Ihe SEaEe ana ProvInciEI Level,"

pp. 43-45.

27
about the definition and implications of the concept. Before
education borrowed and adopted the term, Browder contends
that accountability expressed a role relationship. Its defi-
nition, therefore, is: "the requirement on the occupant of
a role, by those who authorize that role, to answer for the

"12 In current

results of work expected from him in the role.
educational literature, he found accountability used in three
different senses. First, it is synonymous with responsibility.
Secondly, accountability suggests an obligation to explain or
acCount for the disposition of tasks entrusted to an individ-
ual. AThirdly, educational accountability has evolved to mean
that schools and school administrators are both responsible
and answerable for what they produce as outcomes.

Leon Lessinger, who served as associate commissioner
for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Office of
Education until 1970, and who is generally recognized as the
father of educational accountability, gave impetus and form
to the third interpretation described by Browder. He perman-
ently grafted the notion of accountability to educational
policy "by requiring that projects funded under Titles VII
and VIII of the Elementary and Secondary EducatiOn Act pro-

duce predictable and measurable results that could be certi-

fied by independent audit."13

 

12A. D. Newman and R. W. Rowbottom, Or anization An sis
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois Universify Press, I968I, p. 26,
uoted.in Browder, An Administrator's Handbook on Educational
ccountabilit , p. 6.

13Roueche et al., A'c’c’ountability' and the ’C'o'mnuni'ty College,
p. 5.

28

Since that time, higher education has explored the ins
terpretations and implications of accountability in its own
sphere. One example of this work was done by Hartnett.14 He
considered the relationship between accountability and eval-
uation, and while stating that both are aimed at learning
about the effect of an educational institution, was careful
to cite distinctions between the two;15 He also described
two forms of accountability that seem likely to gain support
in higher education. The first is a move toward improved,
output-oriented management methods, always with an eye toward
efficiency. The second form is adoption of an external assess-
ment of efficiency and effectiveness, where performance would
be judged by direct comparison with others with the same fi-
(nancial base. Hartnett maintained, however, that higher
education is not yet proficient in the assessment of effec-
tiveness. The most realistic question, therefore, is whether
it is sensible to hold institutions accountable for their
effectiveness just yet, and whether the efficiency of oper-
. ations couldn't be vastly improved while the effectiveness
is being considered.

In another major study concerning accountability in
higher education, Mortimer considered three aspects of the
concept.

The term accountability has at least three major appli-
. cations to higher education. First, in the management of

 

14Hartnett,"Accountability in Higher Education."

15Ibid., pp. 5-7. For a discuSsion of the distinctions,
see pp. 2-3 above.

29

higher education there is the view that accountability
be defined in legal terms. In practice administrators
are accountable to a variety of nonlegal but equally de-
manding interests and constituents. Second, evaluation
is part of accountability but the latter term is more en-
compassing. Third, while responsibility and accounta-
bility are often used interchangeably, Neff urges a dis-
tinction between voluntarily assuming an obligation and
the legal lgability attached to the performance of cere
tain acts.

Mortimer then examined the more common pressures for
accountability, both from external and internal sources. The
external forces included: executive agencies of federal and
state governments, legislatures, the courts, statewide coor-
dinating agencies, and the public. Within the institution,
three major difficulties in assessing accountability were
described:

(1) the weaknesses of academic authority result in in:
creased pressures to codify the faculty-administrative
relationship; (2) lack of clearly defined goals and ob-
jectives are frequently matched with proposals to hold
institutions more accountable through certain management
techniques and by increased emphasis on student learning;
(3) organizational complexity of colleges and universi-
ties often results in proposals for decentralized decision-
making structures that are not suffifiently aware of le-
gitimate demands for accountability.

Martorana,18

in offering his definition of accounta-
bility, called attention to three facets to be included. One
is the person or groups who are to be accountable. A second

is the person or agency to whom the account is made. A third

 

16Kenneth P. Mortimer, Accountabilit in Hi her Education
(Washington, D.C.: American Issociation ¥or Higfier Education,
February 1972), p. 9. .

l7Ibido, bpo 1-20

18Delgrosso, Accountabilit ‘in'ene Communit' Golle e,
Martorano, "Accountability at ¥He State and Provincial Eevel,"

p. 46.

30

is the goals or purposes against which the measurement of
accountability is to be performed. His point in stressing
the diverse aspects of accountability is "the impossibility
of the use of any one method of accounting. Any one method
just will not prove fully effective and useful in meeting
todays demands on us for a multi-varied accountability."19

In view of the various interpretations of accountability
for higher education it is hardly surprising that a number of
responses have been suggested. Effort seems to be divided
into at least two categories: the use of activity and output
measures, and the application of management techniques. A
full investigation of these categories, while beyond the scope
of this study, would reveal some overlap in their implementa-
tion.

An outstanding example of this overlap is evident in

20 at the University of Colorado.

the work undertaken by Harpel
He devised a set of procedures for implementing an accounta-
bility system specifically for the student personnel level of
the institution. His chronology of procedures incorporates
both use of activity and output measures, and application of
management techniques. Harpel also places strong emphasis on

evaluation as a necessary aspect of good management.

The use of activity and output measures is the focus of

 

- 19Ibid., p. 47.

20Richard L. Harpel, "Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation
in Student Affairs Programs: A Manual for Administrators"
(unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, 1976).

31

work undertaken by the Western Interstate Commission on Higher
Education (WICHE) Management Information Program (MIS),21
which seeks to measure educational outputs and the extent to
which educational institutions have influenced those outputs.
It further attempts to assign dollar values to the outputs
produced. Another approach is the work undertaken by the
Educational Testing Service (ETS) which has constructed a
goals inventory for institutions of higher education.22

The second category of response refers to utilization

23 and Weslowski24

of various management techniques. Hartley
discuss the application of Planning, Programming, Budgeting
Systems (PPBS) to demands for accountability. PPBS is em?
played as a method to improve decisions by the allocation of
resources to obtain maximum benefit.

Hartnett names a management information system ("The
MIS is a system of information collection, storage, collating,

and distribution that makes it possible to monitor routinely

certain aspects of an institution's operations."25) as a

 

21

zzlnstitutional Research Programs for Higher Education,
Institutional Goals Inventory (Princeton: ETS, 1971).

Lawrence et al., Outputs of Higher Education, p. 4.

23Harry J. Hartley, "PPBS: A Systems Approach to Educa-
tional Accountability" (Columbus: Ohio State Department of
Education, 13 April 1972).

24Zdzislaw P. Weslowski, "An Accountability Technique in
Higher Education: The Role of Planning, Programming, Budgeting
and Evaluation Systems (PPBS)" (Winter Haven, Fla.: Polk Com-
munity College, 1974).

25Hartnett, "Accountability in Higher Education," p. 8.

32

control feature of accountability systems in higher education.
This vieWpoint is supported by Zaharchuk: "I am relating
accountability to good management, and I am suggesting that
good management of a system is predicated upon adequate in-
formation systems."26

A final response to accountability has been undertaken
in the application of the technique called management-by-

objectives (MBO). The works of Roueche et al.,27 Braaksma,28

30 Kennedy,31 and‘Lahti,32 discussed

Collins,29 Deegan et al.,
later in this chapter, describe the utilization of MBO as a

contribution toward greater accountability in higher education.

 

26Delgrosso, Accountability in the Community College,
T. Zaharchuk, "Management Techniques and Accountability in
Education," p. 58.

27Roueche et al., Accountabilityiand the Community
College.

28Au ie Braaksma, "RHPO and MBO: Partners in Accounta-
bility" %independent study, Michigan State University, August
1972 .

29Robert W. Collins, Management by Objectives: Advantages,
Problems Im lications for Communit Colle es (Bethesda, Md.:
EH15 Document Heproduction Service, ED 557 792, 1971).

3Ownliam L. Deegan et al., Communit Colle e Man ement
byObjectives: Process, Progress, Problems (Sacramento: Cal-
1

ornia School Board‘Association,‘24 January 1974).

31John D. Kennedy, "Planning for Accountability Via
Management by Objectives," Journal of Secondary Education
45 (December 1970): 348-54..

32Robert E. Lahti, Innovative College Management (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1973f:3"Manage-
ment by Ob ectives," College and University Business 51
(July 1971;: 31-33; and "Implementing the System Means

Learning to Manage Your Ob ectives," College and University
Business 52 (February 19723: 43.

33
Throughout all the interpretations and responses to

the call for accountability runs a common theme. Higher edu-
cation and its representatives have an obligation to their
conStituencies for carrying out delegated responsibilities,
i.e., to produce and account for results in terms of the ob-
jectives which have been delegated. It seems appropriate to
cite Lessinger for a summation of how the accountability con-
cept can apply to higher education.

The comparison between what we are supposed to do or

want to do, and what in fact we accomplish is accoun-

tability. It's a convenient name for a whole set of

faults. I don't see it as being de-human, I don't see

it as performance contracting or anything else, other

than that it is a concern for productivity-~accounting

for one's performance, hopefglly in terms of what objec-

tives we should account for.

. . . the accountability movement 33 a reflection of a

demand for increased productivity.

Productivity:
Concept and Application to Higher Education
It is difficult to review the literature of productiv-

ity since the concept is not an outgrowth of any distinct
discipline.

What began in economics and mechanics was applied by a

variety of specialists to the problems at hand by the

expedient of twisting the concept to fit. As a conse-

quence, there is no coherent bodyagf literature that can
be readily isolated and examined.

33Delgrosso, Accountabilit in the Community College,
Leon Lessinger, "I C C O U N T A B I L I T Y," p. 16.

341bid., p. 12.

 

 

..........

Higher Education Research Report No. 2 (Washington, D.C.:,
American Association for Higher Education, 1973), p. 5.

34
It would seem more feasible, therefore, to review selected
literature which describes the concept as it is currently
understood and applied, with particular attention paid to
the components of productivity and to its application to
higher education. .

The concept of productivity was given national promi-
nence when President Nixon, on June 17, 1970, announced his
intention to establish a National Commission on Productivity.
Some of the initial work of that Commission is available for
review. Two articles comprise a monograph entitled The
Meaning and Measurement of Productivity.36 The first, by

37 includes common definitions of productivity,

Herbert Stein,
and discusses general usefulness of the concept. His focus
was upon labor as our most important productive resource, and
its relationship to output. Stein discussed rates of pro-
ductivity growth within the national economy, and related
productivity to the standard of life enjoyed in this and
other countries.

In the second article, Jerome Mark provided a more
specific discussion in "Concepts and Measures of Productiv-

"38

ity, His topics were single and total factor productivity,

and the importance of the output and input components. Fin-

 

36U.S., Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
The Meaning and Measurement of Productivity, by Jerome Mark
and Herbert Stein, Bulletin 714 (Washington, D. C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1971).

371bid., Stein, "The Meaning of Productivity," pp. 1-6.

38Ibid., Mark, "Concepts and Measures of Productivity,"

pp. 7-150

35

ally, Mark reviewed the available measures (national and in-
dustrial) of productivity. His recommendation was that addi-
tional information be developed in two areas: "the data base
from which output, input, and price statistics are compiled,
and the conceptual base upon which the output and price data
are developed."39

The application of the productivity concept to the ser-
vice sector of the economy was discussed in a monograph pub-
lished by an Advisory Group to the National Commission on
Productivity. In Opportunities for ImprOving Productivity

40 productivity is defined as "the return

"41

in Police Services,
received for a given unit of input. The document reported
on the "effort to develop tools--concepts, measures, means
for improvement, and strategies for change--whereby police
departments can themselves improve productivity."42 The
procedures and models described are a valuable contribution
to an understanding of the productivity concept.

A recent issue of Public Management also investigated

the meaning of productivity in the public sector. In it,

Fisk43 discussed the meaning of productivity and concentrated

 

391bid., p. 14.

4OU.S., Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration, Report of the Advisory Group_on Productivity
in Law Enforcement on Opportunities for'ImprovingpProductiv-
ipy in Police Scrvices (Washington, D.C.: National Commission
on Productivity, 1973}.

42

41Ibid., p. 1. Ibid., p. v.

43Donald M-_Fisk, "Issues in Local Government Productivity
Management," Public Management 56 (June 1974): 6-8.

36

on the identification and measurement of inputs and outputs.

44

Kuper presented several reasons for the recent concern for

productivity along with elements necessary for productivity
growth. Wilson and Finz45 delineated steps toward implemen-
tation of productivity management, and Burkhalter and Coff-
man46 related productivity to the technique of management-
by-objectives.

Extensive application of the productivity concept to
higher education has not yet been undertaken. The most com-
prehensive work is a monograph by Toombs entitled Productiv-
ity: Burden of Success. His study "considers productivity
adjustment--modifications to inputs, outputs, and production
processes--as it currently appears in higher education."47
After examining these concepts, Toombs concluded that

In its simplest form of input-output relationships,
productivity offers no absolute remedy to the financial
problems of higher education. It may be at the insti-

tutional level too much was expected and the essential

ideas stretched too far in the search for global indi-

cators and convenient quantifications. Nevertheless,

the productivity concept offers techfiéques that can be
A applied to higher education's needs.

 

44George H. Kuper, "Productivity Improvement: The Route
to More Effective Public Management,"unblic Management 56
(June 1974): 6-8.

45Robert w. Wilson and Samuel A. Finz, "Implementation
of Productivity Analysis in the County," Public Management
56 (June 1974): 12-14.

46David A. Burkhalter and Jerry B. Coffman, "Charlotte/
‘ Management by Objectives," Public Management 56 (June 1974):
15-16 a

47Toombs, Productivity, p. 3.

48Ibid., p. 43.

37

At the present time, however, Toombs indicated that
much productivity activity is at the level of speculation
and discggsion or is confined to a small number of insti-
tutions.
Widespread improvements in productivity will not take
place until institutional experimentation with produc-
tivity techniquessancreases and successful methodolo-
gies are applied.

In a work primarily concerned with evaluation, Dressel
devoted considerable attention to the concept of productivity.
First, he listed and discussed five specific issues to be re-
solved: (1) level at which productivity is to be examined;
(2) type of productivity to be assessed; (3) measures to be
used; (4) manipulation of the data, computation of indices,
and formulation of judgment about them; and (5) whether quan-
tity, quality, or both are to be assessed.51 Secondly,
Dressel noted three concerns of a more general nature.

. . . the assessment of university productivity is a
complex task, and as long as the pressure for it is
external and based on a single structure preggmed
appropriate for all, it cannot be equitable.

The productivity model also applies more readily to in-
struction than to other purposes and functions of higher
education. Hence its use can overemphasigg direct in-
struction and the teaching faculty . . .

Input-output analyses also require some basis of com-
parison. Achievement of stated goals has little meaning

until the goals are associated with historical data from 54
,the same institution or norms based on other institutions.

 

49Ibid., p. 44.

51Paul L. Dressel, Handbook of Academic Evaluation (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass,TIEEI7-IEEHEEEEEESTTBTWFT7—ppT—85-86.

52Ibid., p. 87‘

53Ibid., p. 88.

54Ibid., p. 91.

38

Despite the complexity of issues to be resolved and the
conceptual concerns that affect (perhaps adversely) the appli-
cation of productivity, Dressel concluded that higher educa-
tion may in fact have little choice in whether to adopt pro-
ductivity in responding to demands for accountability.

In less extensive works, the following authors have ex-
amined aspects of productivity as they apply to higher edu-
cation. Schultz55 related higher education to national pro-
ductivity by examining the contribution of education to
economic growth. Specifically, he looked at the desirability
of public versus private financing of education from the
standpoint of efficiency and equity. He saw educational ex-
penditures as investments in human capital, and analyzed the
rates of return realized from investing in various levels of
education.

Carlson56 drew an analogy between the production and
cost functions of higher education institutions and business
firms in the United States. His unit of analysis was the
total institution, and a cross sectional rather than longi-
tudinal approach was taken. The study emphasized economic
behavior, though it was not a cost benefit analysis nor an

evaluation of higher education.

 

55Theodore W. Schultz, "Education and Productivity,"
paper prepared for the National Commission on Productivity
(Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 071
152, June 1971). '

56Daryl E. Carlson, "The Production and Cost Behavior
of Higher Education Institutions," paper prepared for Ford
Foundation Program for Research in University Administration
(Berkeley: California University, December 1972).

39

57

Garner argued for the development of micro experi-

ments rather than reliance upon large scale survey data in
his application of input-output analysis to the process of
schooling. He reported that most data reflect quantities,
which is the serious shortcoming of most production studies.
It is the service of production units, he maintained, and
not the units themselves, that are factors of production.

58

Wortman maintained that higher education has failed

'to utilize available technical advances for the improvement
of productivity. He examined various ratios in attempting
to find the most productive use of resources (inputs). An
example:

Cost per successful student credit hour is given by
C/HxA where C is cost, H is credit hour, and A repre-
sents successful students. How might we use this
measure to help maximize the output of successggl
students with given resources or a given cost?

Wortman concluded that his measures

bear some resemblance to marginal analysis and short-
run production functions in economic theory. Perhaps
they could be used together to determine optimum en-
rollment. Application to higher egacation awaits fur-
ther experimentation and research.

61

Lahti reviewed the public call for accountability

and contended that increased productivity was a viable means

 

57William T. Garner, "Inputs and Outputs in the Educa-
tional Process," speech given at the 56th Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research AssOciation, New York,
4 February 1971.

'.58Wilferd Wortman, "Productivity and Professors, "
College and University Business 55 (December 1973): 23-24.

591bid., p. 23. 60

61Robert E. _Lahti, "15 Ways to Increase Staff Productiv-
ity," College and University Business 54 (June 1973): 37.

Ibid.

40
of adding to the financial resources available to higher ed-
ucation. He suggested fifteen methods by which staff produc-
tivity might be improved.
At least two studies have investigated productivity in

62 related cost to student

the community college. Berchin
learning in an attempt to identify the most productive courses
offered at fifteen community colleges. He found that a change
in the pattern of classroom organization or instructional mode
could reduce per-pupil costs and increase learning as measured
by grades and completion rates.
Matthews63 identified and classified input variables

for the community college. They consisted of institutional
variables (primarily financial) and variables related to the
community (primarily socio-economic). Output variables re-
lated to generally accepted purposes of the community college.
He then collected and analyzed data from several institutions
in an effort to establish relationships between input and out-
put variables.

The interaction of the nearly infinite number of input

variables in the community and institutional setting

produces a variety of output variables. One of the pur-

poses of input-output research is to identify specific

significant input variables and certain output variables

that relate to the stated goals of the organization and 64
then determine the relationships between these variables.

 

62Arthur Berchin, Toward Increased Efficiency in Community
Junior College Courses: An‘Eprorator Stud (Bethesda, Md.:
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 0 915, 1972).

$.53James Edwardstatthews, is‘1n'ee;oee‘ne'ssca"ar'seiec-
ted Communit Junior Colle es (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, ED 555 581,1971).

64Ibid., p. 5.

41

One of his most significant conclusions concerned the function
of student personnel services.

Expenditures in the area of student personnel services

appear to be particularly crucial . . . the junior col-

leges that provided greater financial emphasis upon stu-

dent personnel services have a more comprehensive en-

rollment of students and a better completion record by

college parallel students. In light of these relation-

ships, it would behoove junior college administrators to

analyze the operation of student personnel services to

insure that optimum benefits gge being derived by the

students and the institution.

Evaluation of Student Personnel Services
Because productivity entails an appraisal of output,

evaluation is an essential component of a productivity model.
Whereas student personnel services is the focus for the pro-
jected productivity model in this study, selected literature
concerning evaluation of student personnel services is re-
viewed in this section. There is no intention to trace the
history and development of student personnel services, nor
to identify essential and/or recommended practices for stu-
dent personnel services. The direction followed is toward
the need for evaluation, and the efforts that have been made
toward this end. Indeed, the abundance of evaluation work
may be regarded as partial confirmation of a recognized need.
A review of this effort follows; the issue remains unresolved,
however, of whether these efforts have adequately fulfilled
the need.

Early evaluations of student personnel services have

been comprehensively reviewed by several authors. Their works

 

65Ibid., p. 27.

42
are readily available and are cited and summarized here rather
than exhaustively reviewed regarding their specific content.

In 1949, Froehlich66 reviewed the literature of eval-
uation of guidance services. Two notable facets of his re-
view included establishment of seven categories for evalua-
tion studies, and delineation of six principles necessary in
an attempt to evaluate student personnel services.

Arbuckle67 discussed evaluation efforts in his 1953
publication. The two basic reasons for continuous evalua-
tion of student personnel services included: a professional
ethical need to accrue valid evidence indicating the positive
effect of effort expended, and for justification of continued
financial support. He objected to the survey method as the
standard and traditional method of evaluation, since a check-
list of existing services is no evaluation at all, and called
instead for application of more scientific methods.

A much more accurate means of evaluation is the scienp
tific method that has been used by the physical sciences
for a long time. As described by Travers, this consists
of 'defining carefully the objectives that are to be
achieved, specifying the group in whom they are to be
achieved, developing instruments for measuring the extent
to which these objectives are achieved, and finally car-
rying through the program and then measuring its actual
outcomes.' Basic for any evaluation is the formulation
of objectives, the development of processes by means of
which these objectives may be achieved, the development

of criteria which will indicate the accomplishment of
these objectives, and the development of tools and in-

 

66CliffordR. .Froehlich, EvaluatingyGuidance Procedures:

A Review of the Literature (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of
Education, 1949)-

67Dugald S. Arbuckle, Student Personnel Services in Higher
Education (New York: McGraWbHill, 1953)

43

struments capable of megguring the extent to which the
criteria are being met.

In the 1960 edition of Encyclopedia of Educational Re-

search, Blaesser and Crookston69

chronologically reviewed
student personnel evaluation efforts. They began with the
first national survey made by Hopkins in 1925 for the Amer-
ican Council on Education, and in their synopsis of evalu-
ation efforts of the thirties and forties, supported Arbuckle's
contention that surveys and questionnaires were the predomp
inant methods employed to examine student personnel services.

70 review of the early fifties identified

Blaesser's
only a few studies dealing with evaluation. During that
same time period, however, several attempts were made to

develop evaluative criteria.7l’72’73’74 The instruments

 

68Robert M.W. Travers, "A Critical Review of Techniques
for Evaluating Guidance," Educational and Psychological
Measurement 9 (Summer 1949): 213, cited in Arbuckle, Student
Personnel Services in Higher Education, pp. 12-15.

69Encyclgpedia of Educational Research, 1960 ed., s.v.
"Student Personnel Work-College and University," by Burns
B. Crookston and Willard W. Blaesser (New York: MacMillan
Company, 1960), pp. 1415-27.

7OWillard W. Blaesser, "The Organization and Administra-
tion of Student Personnel Programs in College," Review of
Educational Research 24 (April 1954): 113-20.

71Eric N. Rackham, "The Need for Adequate Criteria When
Evaluating College Student Personnel Programs," Educational
and Psychological Measurement 1 (1951): 691-99.

72American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
"Standards for.Student Personnel Services and Evaluative Cri-
teria," in Third Yearbook (n.p., 1950), pp. 125-47.

73Robert B. Kamm, "An Inventory of Student Reaction.to
Student.Personnel Services," Educational and Psychological
Measurement 10 (1950): 537-44.

740. Gilbert Wrenn and Robert B. Kamm, "A Procedure for

44
developed individually by Rackham, and jointly by Kamm and
wrenn were utilized at several institutions, but in 1955,

75 queried forty selected student personnel admin-

when Kamm
istrators, he found that, for the most part, little was
being done in systematic evaluation and research.

In more recent literature, the need for better evalu-
ation of student personnel services is still evident.
Klitzke76 focused upon needed research in the community col-
1ege and presented ten questions for immediate considera-
tion along with suggestions for generating and improving
research.

Robinson and Brown reported on current research per-
taining to student personnel services in 1961. Of the 77
examples studied, the most frequent topics were student
characteristics, and attendance and withdrawal surveys. The
Overall conclusion was that there "seems to be serious ne-
glect of research relating to many areas of student personnel
programs."77

A 1963 review conducted by Lloyd-Jones and Smith78

 

Evaluating a Student Personnel Program," School and Society

75Robert B. Kamm, "How Effective Are Our Student Personnel
Programs?" Personnel and Guidance Journal 33 (1955): 318-24.

76Louis L. Klitzke, "Needed_ReSearch in Junior College
Student Personnel Services," Junior College Journal 30 (April
1960): 452-59.

77Donald W. Robinson and Dirck W. Brown, "A Report on
Student and Student Personnel Research Activities," Personnel
and Guidance Journal 40 (December 1961), p. 360.

78Esther Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Ruth Smith, "Higher

45

asserted that little research had been done in the past three
years regarding student personnel programs in higher education.

At a 1964 conference to plan research on junior college
student personnel programs, Young presented a review of the
literature together with implications for research. Again,
the predominant method of research was cited and criticized:
"Little research on student personnel services as of 1960
amounted to more than surveying the most common or 'best'

s."79 "Most research . . . is of a normative type

practice
regarding various segmented aspects of the total program.
The need seems to be for qualitative studies rather than for
more quantitative ones . . ."80
At the same conference, Fordyce enumerated the prob—
lems of evaluation. They included: goals ("effectiveness
of guidance can be determined only in relation to outcomes
that can be isolated and described"81), control of variables,

difficulty of longitudinal studies, and determination of

 

Education Programs," Review of Educational Research 33 (April
1963): 163-70.

79Max R. Raines, conference coordinator, Conference to
Plan Research on Junior College Student Personnel Programs
(Flint, Mi.: Flint Community Junior College, 1964), Raymond
Young, "A Review of Related Literature and Its Implications
for2Research in Junior College Student Personnel Progams,"
p. 0.

8OIbid., p. 23.

81Ibid., Joseph w. Fordyce, "Criteria for Evaluation of
Student Personnel Programs in Public Junior Colleges," pp. 119-
200. Fordyce elaborates on the problems of evaluation in
"Evaluation.of Student Personnel.Services in.Community Col-
leges," Student Development Programs in the Community Colle e,
Terry O'Banion and Alice Thurston, eds., (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972): 92-101.

46
adequate criteria for measurement.

A two year study was completed in 1965 which attempted
to evaluate the present status of junior college student per-
sonnel work against criteria established by professionals in
the field. The study, initiated by the American Association
of Junior Colleges and supported by the Carnegie Corporation,

was coordinated by Raines.82

Difficulty in defining criteria
led to a companion project supported by the U.S. Office of
Education. In the resulting document, twenty-one basic func-
tions of student personnel services were identified. Using
the criterion that two-thirds of twenty-one functions were
provided, three-fourths of the colleges studied were judged
inadequate in their provision of student personnel services.
A familiar criticism was stated concerning evaluation:
Efforts to appraise programs are seriously handicapped
by the absence of well-established criteria. Surprising
as it may be, there is little or no empirical evidence
that a student personnel program has any real gmpact
upon the student or institutional development.
And in the final chapter of the report, concerned with re-
search needs, "critically evaluating the effectiveness of

each personnel service in meeting especially pertinent goals,"84

 

82Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal
and Development, A Report to the Carnegie Corporation, Max R.
Raines, director (Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Junior Colleges, November 1965). A shorter version of this
report which incorporates the project's findings and recom-
mendations is Charles 0. Collins, Junior College Student Per-
sonnel Programs: What They Are and What They Should Be (Wash-
ington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967).

83Ibid., Max R. Raines, Part I, p. 27.

84Ibid., Donald P. Hoyt, "Research Needs in Junior Col-
lege Student Personnel Work," in Part V, p. 14.

47

was named as a specific research problem. Finally, Dobbin
and Turnbull advocated assessment of student personnel ser-
vices by staff within the college according to the classic
pattern of scientific inquiry: (1) state the purposes of the
program, (2) establish the criteria by which the success of
the program will be judged, and (3) apply the criteria and
interpret the evidence that accumulates.85

The Raines study was a basis for an investigation con-

ducted by Yoder and Beals in 1966.86

Format and methodology
were imitated; the outcome, however, was a summary of guide-
lines presented in the form of recommendations for twelve
functions of student personnel services.

In another research effort utilizing part of the Raines
study, Maryland community colleges used a modified version of
the questionnaire instrument to survey the opinions of stu-
dents, faculty, administrators, and student personnel workers
regarding currently offered services and practices.87

In response to a recommendation of the Raines study,

a year long study was funded by the Esso Foundation in 1971.

For a number of reasons, replication . . . was not
feasible. Instead, procedures were designed to collect

 

85Ibid., John E. Dobbin and William w. Turnbull, "The
Need for New Appraisal Techniques in Junior Colleges," in
Part V, p. 15.

86Marlen Yoder and Lester Beals, "Student Personnel Ser-
vices in the West," Junior College Journal 37 (October 1966):
38-41.

87Edward Kuhl, "Do We Make a Difference? - New Directions
in Evaluation," paper presented at the American Personnel and
Guidance Convention, Las Vegas, 3 April 1969 (Bethesda, Md.:
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 031 731, 1969).

48

data about what is going on in the student personnel

areas in the nation's community and junior colleges

and to discgger any significant trends which may be

developing.
Data were collected regarding characteristics of student per-
sonnel administrators, their previous training and experience,
budget and organization of student personnel services, extent
and range of services, and major problems encountered. The
Esso study, therefore, was also of a survey nature and as
such was not truly an evaluation of student personnel services.

In 1973, Lewis commented on current evaluation attempts.

Aside from checklists, satisfaction surveys, and tech-

nique comparisons, our effectiveness is estimated by

tabulating users and soliciting opinions. In a period

of reallocation of declining financial resources, our

limited success in developing soundsgvaluational methods

or criteria will prove troublesome.

Also in 1973, Dressel90 discussed two problems to be

resolved in the evaluation of student personnel services.
The first was: to define the benefits, and the criteria that
are acceptable indices of those benefits. The second problem
was prior and more pervasive, and that is the extent of bias
and emotion involved in evaluation. Besides addressing these

issues, Dressel would alter the focus of evaluation. ". . .

one tends to concentrate on the characteristics of the envir-

 

88Jane E. Matson, "A Perspective on Student Personnel
Services," Junior College Journal 42 (March 1972): 48.

89Charles L. Lewis, "College Student Personnel: A Current
Estimate," Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (January

1973): 5.

90Paul L. Dressel, "Measuring the Benefits of Student
Personnel Work," Journal of Higher Education 44 (January

1973): 15-26.

49

onment, on the characteristics of the processes that go on,
or on the attainment of outcomes. I wish to emphasize the
evaluation of outcomes since here reside the benefits."91
He stated, however, that the ultimate question of whether
these benefits actually derived are worth the cost in com-
parison to benefits foregone, is, and is likely to remain
unanswerable.

0f the dissertations written during the past twenty-
five years, eighty were identified which attempted to inves-
tigate and/or evaluate student personnel services in higher

education.92

Four categories of research were apparent.

The largest category (38 dissertations) contained disser-
tations which attempted to ascertain perceptions and reac-
tions of administrators, faculty, student, and student per-
sonnel workers regarding effectiveness of student personnel
services. The second category, consisting of 23 disserta-
tions, focused upon examination of the purposes, organization
and administration of student personnel services. In the
third category, numbering 15 dissertations, were efforts to
determine criteria and produce evaluation methods. The fourth
category contained 4 dissertations which surveyed the scope
and quantity of student personnel services.

Throughout the recommendations and implications of

this body of work, and of the published works previously re-

 

911bid., p. 22.

928ee Appendix B for list of dissertations pertaining to
evaluation of student personnel services.

50
viewed, are three dominant themes. The first is that student
personnel services as they exist in higher education insti-
tutions have not been adequately or accurately evaluated. The
second theme is that the methods and instruments currently
being employed are not sufficient in scope and/or sophisti-
cation to successfully fulfill the existing and recognized
need. Finally, the necessary step of identifying and mea-

suring desired criteria has not been accomplished.

Goals, Objectives,
and Outcomes for Higher Education

In this section, literature relevant to the output com-
ponent of the productivity measure is discussed. Topics in-
clude goal-setting, delineation of objectives (with particu-
lar emphasis upon management-by-objectives), and identifica-
tion of outcome measures.
Goal-Setting

Personal declarations about goals for higher education
are readily available. In Whose Goals for American Higher
Education?93 for example, Philip Werdell argued for teaching
and learning as basic functions; Lyle-Spencer argued for re-
search; John Corson for public service; Kenneth Keniston for
social criticism; and Walter Lippman for spiritual and intel-
lectual guidance for the nation. While these vieWpoints may

be helpful, an institution must be able to select and articu-

 

930. G. Dobbins and C. B. T. Lee, Whose Goals for Ameri-
can Higher Education? (Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1968).

51
ulate goals which are meaningful to their constituencies.
An efficient method for obtaining such information has been
the focus of several studies.

94 work in 1968 stands as a

First, Gross and Grambsch's
most significant empirical effort to examine the nature of
university goals, especially as they existed in the perception
of faculty and administrators. Using an inventory of 47 goal
statements, which respondents rated in terms of present and
preferred importance, the authors found that general differ-
ences in goal definition between faculty and administrators
were negligible.

The second goals study, done by the Danforth Foundation
in 1969, utilized a shortened and revised version of Gross
and Grambsch's inventory to identify goals at 14 private lib-
eral arts colleges.95 Significant agreement was found among
faculty, administrators, and students on most matters related
to college goals and governance.

Sieber et al.96 reported the results of a third study
in which a form containing 64 goal statements was sent to the

academic dean of every college in the country. Deans indi-

cated the extent to which their college emphasized a goal;

 

94E.W. Gross and P.V. Grambsch, University Goals and
Academic Power (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Edu-
cation, 1968).,

95Danforth Foundation, "A Report: College Goals and
Governance," Danforth News and Notes (n.p., November 1969).

96S.D. Sieber et al., A Taxonom of Hi her Education
(New York: Columbia University, Bureau of fippIied Social

Research, March 1968).

52
results demonstrated that various institutions had differing
goals, although there was some universal agreement on a few
goals. The results were limited to responses of academic
deans and did not represent opinions of important campus groups.

Analysis of college goals was a facet of a study done
by 13 member colleges of the Council for Advancement of Small
Colleges.97 Faculty and administrators ranked stated desired
characteristics of graduates in terms of importance to the
institution.

The instruments utilized in these four studies were de-
signed for a specific type of institution and/or respondents.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) endeavored to provide /
a single instrument to identify goals for colleges and uni-
versities as seen by both on- and off-campus groups. To this
end, a preliminary Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) was
constructed in 1969.

The preliminary form of the IGI contains 100 statements
of plausible institutional goals. . . to which the re-
spondents-~students, faculty, administrators, alumni,
trustees, members of the immediate community, or what-
ever--indicate the extent to which they feel eacg state-
mentiig and should be a goal of the 1nst1tut10n.

This preliminary IGI was used in a study by Uhls, funded
by the National Laboratory for Higher Education. General pur-

pose of the study was to investigate the suitability of com-

bining a goals instrument with the Delphi technique to help

 

97Arthur W. Chickering et al., Research and Action, Third
Annual Progress Report, Project on Student’Development at
Selected Small Colleges (n.p., March 1968).

98Hartnett, "Accountability in Higher Education," pp. 11-
12.

53
institutions achieve better understanding of their goals as
seen by on- and off-campus groups. Uhl's general conclusion
was: "The instrumentation and technique used in this study
to assess the present and preferred goals of five colleges

and universities with quite different characteristics were

successful."99

In 1971, Peterson and Morstain undertook a modification
of the preliminary IGI, and administered it to samples of
students and faculty at ten institutions on the West Coast.
Results of the West Coast Pilot Project were reported by
Peterson together with his exposition of the importance of
the goal-setting process.

Absolutely critical to a college's planning, evaluation,
and related institutional-renewal activities is a con-
sciousness among people on the campus of the goals of the
institution. Planning makes no sense unless the planners
know what ends they are seeking to realize or maximize.
Program objectives have coherence to the extent that they
reflect broader institutional goals. Assessment of in-
stitutional effectiveness is most sensibly understood as
determination of the extent to which acknowledged goals
are being achieved. Indeed, one could conClude thatng
decision on the campus makes sense unless it is taken with
reference to accepted college goals. Beyond these rather
pragmatic uses, such goals are the fundamentals of an in-
stitution's policy, ideology, and values, providing a
focus for layalty, professional commitment, and genuine
community.

101

A 1972 dissertation by Harshman related the process

 

99Norman P. Uhl, Identifying Institutional Goals Emerging
Convergence of Opinion Through the Delphi Technique'(Durham,
N.C.: National Laboratory for Higher Education, 1971), p. 49.

100Richard E. Peterson, College Goals and the Challenge 0f
Effectiveness (Princeton: Institutional Research Program for
Higher Education, ETS, 1971), p. 5.

101Carl Leonard Harshman, "An Analytical Model for Insti-
tutional Goal Development: A Survey of Selected Student Per-

54
of goal-setting to student personnel services. His review
of the major studies (Gross and Grambsch, Uhl, and Peterson),
revealed three major shortcomings for student personnel ser-
vices.
1. None of the research identified college student
personnel as an independent constituency. Rather,

it was included in the administrative group.

2. Survey instruments do not adequately represent the
concerns of student development.

3. None of the studies tested hypotheses or analyzed
data in other than descriptive or correlational ways.

Derivation of Objectives and Use of the Management-by-
Objectives Method

Whereas goals are the broad, generalized ends of a
higher education system, objectives are specified, measurable
ends of each component of the system. It is necessary to
formulate and specify objectives in order to bring goals to
an operational level. An objective can be defined, therefore,
as a "quantifiable and/or observable achievement accomplished
under speciable conditions."102

Van Wijk and Young delineate essential concepts related

to an objective:

1. There is the idea of directing an existing situation
towards a desired end. Energy in the form of monetaty

 

sonnel Workers in Ohio Higher Education" (Ph.D. dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1972).

102Educational Goals and Objectives (California School
Board Association, September 1969), p. 7, cited by Alfons P.
Van Wijk and Barbara J. Young, "Objectives, Program Structure
and Evaluation in Higher Education: An Introduction" (Toronto:
University of Toronto, Institute for Policy Analysis, n.d.),
p. 6.

55

funds or human endeavor is spent in various ways to
accomplish the objective . . .

2. The objectives should suggest ways to measure and
control the effectiveness of these alternatives . . .

3. Objectives can be found at various levels in the
organization; primary objectives which assume signifi-
cance for the whole organization and secondary objec-
tives which support the primary ones but are identified
at a precise structuralolevel, e.g., an objective found
at the activity level.

Numerous taxonomies and definitions of objectives exist
in the literature of education. The need,.value, and charac-
teristics of objectives are not at issue. The focus here is
upon formulation of objectives for student personnel services,.
i.e., for an activity level of a higher education institution.
One way to do so is through the application of the management-
by-objectives (MBO) process, because one product of the MBO
process is a set of measurable objectives.

The term "management-by-objectives" was first used by

104 105

Drucker in 1954. Odiorne's work, published in 1965,

operationalized the concept and initiated an extensive amount

of literature describing the adoption and application of MBO

106

to the field of management in the United States. In recent

 

103Van Wijk and Young, Ibid., p. 6.

104Peter Drucker The Practice of Management (New York:
Harper and Row, 1954).

105George S. Odiorne, Management by Objectives (New York:
Pitman, 1965).

106Louise Bower, comp., "Bibliography No. 1 - Management
by Objectives, February 1973," and "Supplement to Bibliog-
raphy No. 1, November 1974" (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern
University, The Management Library, n.d.). These two bibli-
ographies list 108 articles and 33 books published between
January 1964 and October 1974 pertaining to MBO in the busi-

56
years, MBO has been similarly applied to the management of
higher education as evidenced by a vast amount of literature
and research. Two criteria were used to select literature
reviewed here: MBO as it pertains to the community college,
and MBO applied to student personnel serVices in higher edu-
cation.

Several authors have examined MBO in the community col-
lege setting. In a 1971 paper, Collins stated that MBO was
implemented to "increase productivity, improve planning, max-
imize profits, more objectively evaluate managerial perfor-
mance, and improve organizational morale."107 He continued
by describing advantages of NBC, the problems encountered,
and implications for use in the community college.

Lahti has become a leading exponent on the application
of MBO to the community college setting. An article in 1971,108
which described MBO at a particular institution, was followed
by a 1972 article in which he discussed requisites for im-
plementation.109 Innovative College Management,110 published
in 1973, was a guide for higher education administrators who

wish to implement MBO in their institutions. It provided

 

ness and industrial setting. In addition, there is at least
one journal and one newsletter devoted exclusively to MBO.
107Collins, Management by Objectives, p. 3.
108

109Lahti, "Implementing the System Means Learning to
Manage Your Objectives," pp. 43-46.

110

Lahti, "Management by Objectives," pp. 31-33.

Lahti, Innovative College Management.

57
theory and specific procedures for adopting MBO to individual
colleges.

Roueche et a1. called upon MBO to describe a system of
change whereby community colleges might become more accoun-
table.

Results (the fulfillment of objectives) which allow the
college to accomplish its mission permit the institution
and its personnel to be accountable to the constituency
served by the college. Commitment to a policy statement
which is performance- and objective-based permits an in-
stitution to start where it is and to make an initial
jump into operating procedures which offer some assurance
that outcomes will be desired ones.

The process desifibed above is known as 'management-
by-objectives.’

More recently, Deegan et a1. "reviewEeilthe process,
progress, and problems of management by objectives as a man-
agement technique, to help deal with the many problems that

"112 Fol-

confront community college educators in the 70's.
lowing this analysis of MBO was a description of the program
at Mt. San Jacinto College in California.

113 also discussed implementation of MBO in

Chronister
the community college, and summarized the premise and rationale
which justify its use. MBO, by making clearer the goal, en-
hances the chances of accomplishing it, and provides a yard-

stick by which to measure progress.

 

lllRoueche et al., Accountability and the Community

College, p. 24.
112Deegan et al., Community College Management, p. 2.

113Jay L- Chronister, "Implementin Management by Ob-
jectives," Communitprollege Review 2 (Spring 1974): 61-9.

58

Finally, Kennedy114 linked the application of MBO to
planning for accountability. He considered planning to be
the most critical function of management, and maintained
that MBO is an appropriate way to accomplish it.

MBO has been applied to the student personnel services
dimension of higher education. In discussing the relation-
ship between MBO and the student affairs operation, Abbott
contended that MBO is a viable tool for "both providing for
organizational purposes or goals and for providing consider-
ation for subordinates."115 He examined implementation of
MBO in the student affairs area together with problems and
limitations that must be recognized.

Harvey changed MBO to ABC (administration by objectives)
in discussing the MBO process in the educational setting.
His article focused upon ABO in the student personnel area,
and concentrated on the importance of setting objectives as
a key to success. He concluded:

The ABC system outlined above is a cousin to the behav-
ioral objectives and a systems approach to education.
It applies some of the same techniques to the adminis-
trative process and holds the same hope thatlig will

make us more efficient and more accountable.

The application of MBO to student personnel services

 

114Kennedy, "Planning for Accountability Via Management
by Objectives," pp. 348-54.

115Bernard'J. Abbott, "Organizational Leadership and
Management by Objectives With Emphasis on Student Affairs
Operations," MSU Orient 6 (Fall 1971): 17.

116James Harvey, "Administration by Objectives in Student
Personnel Programs," Journal of College Student Personnel 13
(July 1972): 296.

59
at specific institutions has been described by several authors.
Braaksma117 discussed implementation in the residence hall

118

system at Michigan State University, Dannemiller reviewed

progress in the Department of Student Services at the Univer-

119

sity of Michigan, Schoderbek conducted a seminar on MBO

for the DiviSion of Dormitories and Food Services at Michigan

State University, and Zatechka120

investigated attitudes and
perceptions of residence hall staff at Michigan State Univer-
sity toward implementation of NBC.

Finally, Vande Guchte121

examined the relationship be-
tween use of MBO and perceived effectiveness of community
college student personnel units. The results of a study which
included eight Michigan community colleges indicated that
student personnel units which fully use MBO evidence greater

perceived presence of each of the characteristics of effec-

tiveness than those units which do not use MBO.

 

1173raaksma, "RHPO and M30."

118Kathleen Dannemiller, untitled booklet "describing
first year and a half of the implementation of MBO in Student
Services" (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 4 January 1973).

119Peter P. Schoderbek, "Management by 0b ectives Semi-
nar," Gull Lake Conference Center (n.p., 1971)

120Douglas S. Zatechka, "An Exploratory Study of Michigan
State University Residence Hall Staff Attitudes and Percep-
tions Concerning the Implementation of a Management by Objec-
tives System" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,

1974).

121Peter Vande Guchte, "A Study of Relationships Between
the Use of Management-by-Objectives and Perceived Effective-
ness in Selected Community Junior College Student Personnel
Unite" (Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University,
1973 .

60
Identification and Use of Outcome Measures
In natural sequence after goal-setting and delineation
of objectives, is the necessity to identify outcome measures,
or results achieved in the pursuit of objectives which in
turn were the operationalization of the institution's goals.
Lawrence summarized the relationship: ". . . an assessment
of the outcomes of higher education becomes the means for re-
lating the programs, activities, and resources utilized in
higher education to educational goals."122 This relationship
may also be characterized as an indication of effectiveness.
Further, when outcomes can be related to cost (see Cost Input
and Cost Analysis, p. 66), an indication of efficiency is
available.
The need for outcome measures was succinctly stated

by Balderston.

. . . we have bumped hard into the question of outputs

and its measurement because, among other things, we

are seeking now to link the resources used to the re-

sults achieved--in other words, to link inputs with

outputs. It turns out that in the long history of

concern about the processes and activities of educa-

tion, we have achieved only a very imperfect grasp of

the nature of its results. We are having to tackle

the problems of output definition and measurement

under forced draft, for higher education has come to

the front of public attention both as a major social

problem and as a major‘con§§ibut0r to social change
and economic development.

 

122Ben Lawrence, "Recent Developments and Future Direc-
tions of Research on Planning and Management Systems in
Higher Education," paper presented to the Statewide Confer-
ence on Planning and Management Systems for Post-Secondary
Education (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 29 Jan-
uary 1973), p. 33.

123LawTence et al., eds., Outputs of Higher Education,

61

Micek and Arneylz4 cited three issues relevant to
the need for a greater variety of outcome measures. First,
measurement of outcomes should extend beyond the intellec-
tual to also include the affective domain of students. Sec-
ond, it must be recognized that college experience is future-
oriented. Consequently data must be longitudinal and it
should include both inStitutional aggregated and individual-
centered measures. Third, there is an accelerating trend
toward universal higher education, necessitating outcome
measures of experiences different from those of traditional
liberal arts colleges and large universities.

The usefulness of adequate outcome measures was de-
scribed by Lawrence.125 In addition to the relationship
mentioned earlier (between results achieved and institutional
goals), knowledge of outcomes enhances the planning and
decision-making process, i.e., aids in making judgments and
setting priorities. Also, outcome information facilitates
communication among decision makers, and helps answer the
question of whether goals set were actually attained.

At least four difficulties prevail among attempts to

derive outcome measures. As enumerated by Micek and

 

Frederick E. Balderston, "Thinking About the Outputs of
Higher Education," p. 11._,

124Sidney S. Micek and William Ray Arney, "Outcome-
Oriented Plannin in Higher Education: An Approach or an
Impossibility?" (Boulder, 001.: WICHE, June 1973), PP. 16-17.

l‘25Lawrenc'e,."Recent Developments and Future Directions
of Research," pp. 33-35.

62

126 they include the following: few explicit mea-

Wallhaus,
sures of program effectiveness are currently available, avail-
able information is difficult to use since analytic and in-
terpretative techniques are undeveloped, planners and decision
makers have difficulty translating goals into terms of spe-
cific desired outcomes, and use of outcome data is thwarted

by fear of potential misuse.

Despite the difficulties, substantial work has been
undertaken to measure the outcomes of higher education.
Micek and Wallhaus attempt to capsulize the nature of the
work that has been accomplished and the potentials for fu-
ture research in the chart reproduced on page 63.

The principal effort to identify and measure outcomes
has been done by the National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems (NCHEMS) at WICHE. "NCHEMS's first effort
has been an attempt to develop an inventory of possible out-
come variables with suggestions for their measurement."127
Related projects include first, the Program Classification
Structure (PCS), defined as "a system which categorizes the
activities of an organization in a program-oriented framework
128

that relates these activities to organizational objectives";

and second, the Outcomes project,

 

126Sidney S. Micek and Robert A. Wallhaus, "An Introduc-
tion to the Identification and Uses of Higher Education Out-
come Information Technical Report 40" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS
at WICHE, March 1973), pp. 2-3.

127Ibid., p. 16.
128James R. Topping and Glenn K. Miyataka, "Program Mea-

sures Technical Report 35" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE,
February 1973), p. 241.

63

 

COLLEGE IMPACT RESEARCH

Focus of the Research

Outcomes Examined

 

 

 

-Short Time Horizons Knowledge
COLLEGE -Macro Studies Skills
IMPACT ON' -Model of Student In- values and Attitudes
puts, Environment/
STUDENTS Process, Student Competence
Outputs
-Utilizes Primarily Vocational Prepar-
Test and Question- ation
naire Data
-Long Time Horizons Earning Power
-Macro Studies Redistribution of
COLLEGE Wealth
-Historica1 Time
IMPACT ON Series Data (Census, Rate of Return
etc.
GRADUATES Socioeconomic Mo-
-Focuses on Economic bility
and Labor Factors
Employment
Intergenerational
Effects
-Medium-Range Horizons GNP Factors
(1 to 10 years)
Crime Rate
COLLEGE -Macro Studies
Manpower Supply/
IMPACT ON -Empirical Data from Demand
Industry, Government,
SOCIETY Social Agencies, etc. High Risk/High Cost

-Focuses on Both
Social and Economic
Factors

Subpopulations
(Welfare, Mental
Health, etc.)

Social Participation

 

SOURCE: Sidney S. Micek and Robert A. Wallhaus, "An Introduction
to the Identification and Uses of Higher Education Outcome In-

formation Technical Report 40" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE,
March 1973), Pa 11.

64

. . . involved with the development of structures,
measures, procedures, and analyses appropriate for
including the outcomes and impacts of postsecondary
education in the postsecondary education planning
and management procegg at the institution, state,
and federal levels.

Throughout the NCHEMS work, outcome measure is defined as

"program measures that quantitatively express the outcomes

achieved or the products generated by the activities of a

program element during a stated time period.

"130

To totally accomplish outcome-oriented planning and

management of higher education, a long-range large-scale

program must be undertaken. Micek and Wallhaus have stated

what such a program needs to accomplish.

l.

The development of better outcome measures, and
the identification of relationships between these
measures. (This is primarily a research problem
involving specific measurement studies and im-
proving measurement technologies.

The establishment of linkages between outcome
measures and other measures of the components of
higher education.

Continual improvement of the conceptualization
and understanding of the outcomes assessment
problem in higher education.

The development of a taxonomy of higher education
outcome variables that identifies and defines the
associated outcome measures that are currently
available. (This product must have a very prag-
matic orientation. .

The development of guidelines and procedures for
utilizing outcome measures and assessment method-
ologies that have short-term payoffs and can be
built upon for longer-term improvements.

 

l291:bid., p. 239.

130

Ibid.

65
6. Finally, the promotion of the use of outcome in-
formation in the planning and management procefgfs
in all sectors and levels of higher education.

Such a program is currently underway at NCHEMS. Intro-
duction to it was the subject of Technical Report 40. Two
phases were subsequently completed and described in follow-up
publications. Phase I aimed toward identification of out-
come measures. The method used was a survey administered
nationally to college administrators and state-level decision

132 Phase II

makers; results were reported in November 1974.
was designed to develop operational definitions and data
acquisition procedures for the top-priority outcome measures
identified in Phase I. A preliminary report on Phase II was
published in May 1975.133

Thus far, effort concerning outcomes has focused upon
the instructional component of higher education and upon
total institutions. It will be some time before the tech-
niques are refined and applicable to less comprehensive com-
ponents of higher education institutions.

One attempt to measure the outcomes of the student

personnel component of higher education is the "IRC Model

for Input-Output Analysis of Student Personnel Services"

 

131Micek and Wallhaus, "An Introduction to the Identifi-
cation and Uses of Higher Education Outcome Information,"
PP. 14-15 a

l3281dney S. Micek and William Ray Arney, "The Higher Ed-
ucation Outcome Measures Identification Study A Descri tive
Summary" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE, November 1974).

133Sidney S. Micek, Allan L. Service, and Yong S. Lee,
"Outcome Measures and Procedures Manual Field Review Edition
Technical Report 70" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE, May 1975).

66

cooperatively developed by twenty-six Florida community
and junior colleges. Three instruments comprise the model:
Assessment of Student Personnel Objectives, Assessment of
Outputs for Student Personnel Services, and Guide for Cost
Analysis of Student Personnel Services Strategies. Some
of the uses for outcome measures enumerated by Lawrence are
confirmed in the application of the IRC Model.

The IRC Model has not only provided information needed

for participating colleges to adjust their efforts in

the direction of areas with indicated needs, but re-

sulted in better understanding by both faculty and 134

students of the role of student personnel serV1ces.

Cost Input and Cost Analysis

Previous discussion focused upon the output portion of
the productivity model. To complete the model, inputs, or
costs expended on resources to achieve the objectives, need
to be considered before a relationship can be drawn between
input and output. Literature relevant to cost input is dis-
cussed in this section.

When discussing costs of higher education, parameters
must immediately be drawn. Excluded from this review are
cost-benefit (or effectiveness) analysis, and economic theories
which regard investment in human capital as an indicator of

future productivity. Further, there is no attempt to assess

and judge present and proposed methods of financing for higher

 

134James L. Wattenbarger and John M. Nickens, The IRC
Model for Input-Output Analysis of Student Personnel Ser-
vices (Gainesville: University of Florida, Florida Commun-
ity Junior College Inter-Institutional Research Council,
1973). p. i.

67
education, nor to document and judge the dimensions of what-
ever financial crises face higher education. Succinctly,
the focus here is upon how to measure the costs expended in
the attainment of specified objectives as measured by actual
outputs.

Within this framework, however, are several problems:
inputs must be identified, costs assigned to them, outputs
defined, and finally, relationships established between cost
input and output. A final consideration is whether to con-
sider the total institution, or to limit costing of inputs
to some smaller segment such as a department within the college.

Despite the difficulties, the benefits of studying costs
are substantial and fully justify the effort.

When a college launches a move toward more effective
use of resources, no step is more important than a
careful analysis of costs, in relation not only to
appropriate measures of input, . . . but also in re-
lationltg appropriate measures of output or quality,
. . . (Italics mine.)

Mowbray and Levine have alleged that "Better informa-
tion on the costs of education can make a contribution to
both the planning of education and evaluation of results."136

The present need is two-fold: a way to relate costs of the

institution to its activities, and procedures for comparing

 

135Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The More
Effective Use of Resources An Im erative for H1 her Edu-
cation (New YorE: McCraw-HEII Book Company, June 1972), p. i.

136George Mowbray and Jack B. Levine, "The Development
and Implementation of CAMPUS: A Computer-Based Planning and

Budgeting System for Universities and Colleges," reprinted
from Educational Technology, 1971, p. l.

68
costs of doing things in different ways in the future. At
present, traditional accounting systems utilized by colleges
and universities do not fulfill these needs. Toombs confirmed
this assessment: "The traditional form of fund accounting and
budgeting links allocations to administrative units rather
than to specific activities."137
In a study which investigated costing techniques and
resource allocation in higher education, Bottomley provided
a useful definition and distinction for the term "costs."
The uses of cost figures are, very broadly, two-fold--
'accounting' uses, and 'planning' uses. In the category
of 'accounting' uses are included any ex post exercises
in allocating costs that have already been incurred to
outputs that have already been produced. The category
of 'planning' uses includes any exercise involving the
estimation of costf3§hat will in the future be incurred
to produce output.
It would seem that "accounting" costs would be applicable to
the need cited by Mowbray and Levine for evaluation, and that
"planning" costs would serve the need for comparing alterna-
tive methods of future operations.

139 examined the progress of higher education

Cavanaugh
toward resolving the need for better analysis of costs. In
his monograph four objectives were cited: (1) to examine and

and evaluate materials on cost analysis; (2) to explain the

 

137

138J.A. Bottomley, Cost Effectiveness in Higher Education
(England: Bradford University, July 1971), p. I.

Toombs, Productivity, p. 22.

139A1fred D. Cavanaugh, "A Preliminary Evaluation of Cost
Studies in Higher Education" (Berkeley: California University,
Office of Institutional Research, October 1969).

69

basic techniques of cost studies and the uses to which they've
been put; (3) to identify the values of cost analysis as an
administrative tool; and (4) to determine whether the cost
figures supplied by institutions could be used for inter-
institutional comparison. He warned at the onset that "Any
study of cost analysis procedures is severely handicapped by
the scantiness of the literature."140

Fulfillment of his first two objectives comprised the
body of his work. He cited the 1935 cost-analysis procedures
published under the auspices of three regional associations,141
and affirmed its soundness in stating that a revision of this
work was included in the 1952 edition of College and Business
Administration published by ACE, and again revised in 1968.

Cavanaugh's second objective concerned procedures and
uses of cost analysis. After data are collected, either
from accounting records or budget, there are at least three
ways to organize and present it. First, is a simple organ-
ized listing of total expenditures. A second method is to
determine the percentage of funds distributed to different
expense categories and note how these expenditures varied
over time. The third method, most common, is derivation of

unit costs. He explained the method and its association

with productivity.

 

140

141The National Committee on Standard Reports ioernsti-
tutions of Higher Learning, Financial Reports for Colleges
end Universities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935),
cited by Cavanaugh, Ibid., p. ii.

Ibid., p. i.

70

In essence, the expenditures, which, to use the rather
unfortunate terminology which has grown up around edu-
cational cost analysis, represent 'input,' are divided
by the number of units of 'output,' whatever these may
be considered to be, and the resplEing figure becomes

a cost per unit of 'production.'

Continuing with the industrial analogy, one can see at
once there will be a great difference of opinion as to
what is actually 'produced' in the educational process.
It is no help to say that knowledge is produced, be-
cause there is no way of directly quantifying it. If
unit costs are to be developed at all, one needs measures
that are quantifiable and which stand in some meaningful
relationship to the abstract product which cannot be
measured directly. The choices are all among fairly
inadequate alternatives, but the choice musf4ge made

if unit cost data are to be derived at all.

Various authors have appraised unit costs. As early
as 1958, D01 and Russell identified the central issue per-
tinent to the use of unit costs.

Perhaps the most valid criticism, of the many that have
been made, stems from the difficulty of identifying an
appropriate unit for measuring the production of service
to be used in the calculations. For such categories of
expenditures as instructional salaries, the full-time-
equivalent student or the student-credit-hour produced
appears to be the most appropriate unit. But for other
functions, such as organized research and organized ac-
tivities related to instructional departments, no sat-
isfactory upfit of production or service has yet been
identified.

Topping defined unit cost analysis as

. . . relating a group of costs to some unit of measure-
ment. This merely ensures some degree of comparability;
raw data cannot be compared unless some unit of measure-
ment is introduced. The problem begins with the selec-

 

l420avanaugh, "A Preliminary Evaluation of Cost Studies
in Higher Education," p. 6. ‘

‘143Ibid., p. 7.

144Encyc10pedia(of(EducationalPResearCh, 1960 ed., s.v.,
"Finance-Colleges and Universities," By James I. D01 and
John Dale Russell (New York: MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 546.

71

tion of the numerator (the group of costs under consid-

eration) and the selection of the denominator (the unit

of measurement). A logical relationship must exist be-

tween the numerator and thelgenominator in order to pro-

duce a usable cost measure.

Sims contended that unit cost studies might become an

integral part of the funding process for junior colleges.
He discussed the major tasks of a cost study, reviewed the
problems encountered, and clarified some relevant terminol-
ogy. Unit costing is "the process of identifying the cost
of producing a product or performing a service With costs
assigned in terms of units of product or service rendered."146
He also distinguished between cost accounting and cost finding.
The former applies accounting principles in determination of
unit costs of production. It is a method in which produc-
tion costs are accumulated and distributed to cost centers
on an equitable basis. Data are historical. The latter is
a separate system, which may utilize cost accounting data in
conjunction with other institutional data, to allocate costs
to activities. Finally, a cost center is "the smallest unit
d."147

or segment of operations for which costs are collecte

Cost-finding procedures have superceded traditional

 

145James R. Topping, "Unit Costs Analysis Tells Where
Your Money Goes--and Why," College and University Business
53 (June 1972), Pa 46. A

146Wayne Stumph, "A Cost-Finding Primer for Post Secon-
dary Schools," (unpublished monograph, Bellville, 111.,
February 1972), quoted by Howard D. Sims, "A Master Plan for
Unit Cost Studies Among Community Junior Colleges" (Tala-
hassee: Florida State University, Center for State and Re-
ggggal Leagership, Department of Higher Education, August
, p. 0

147Sims, "A Master Plan for Unit Cost Studies," p. 23.

72
cost accounting for three reasons. Toombs enumerates:
(1) M0st programs have substantial costs that are easily
overlooked or underestimated. (2) Similar institutions
exhibit large differences in average costs. (3) Patterns
of change in costs differ among industrieslagd among in-
stitutions rarely following a linear form.

The principles of cost-finding and emphasis on unit
costs characterize the work currently in progress by NCHEMS.
Their cost-finding definition echoes Sims:

An analytical process periodically used in lieu of a
formal cost accounting system, making use of accounting
data as well as other data available within the insti-
tution to arrive at unit costligformation for activities
conducted by the institution. ,

Related projects at NCHEMS serve as the basis for the
formulation of structure, measures, and procedures. These
include the PCS (see page 62), which defines a structure for
organizing the activities of higher education in a standard
way; and the Faculty Activity Analysis Procedures Manual,
which illustrates a faculty survey instrument and recommends
procedures for conducting a survey.

Originally designed "to develop a uniform set of stan-
dards, definitions, and alternative procedures that would
use accounting and statistical data to find the full cost
of resources used in the process of achieving institutional

150

objectives, the Cost Finding Principles project serves

 

148Toombs, Productivity, p. 23.

149James R. Topping, "Cost Analysis Manual Field Review
Edition_ Technical Report 45" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE,
1974). p. 190.

150Ibid., p. 1.

73
the following purposes.151
1. Improve capabilities for internal management
a. "flagging" possible problem areas for more
detailed investigations that may or may not
result in a reallocation of resources
b. provide parameters for future budgeting

0. develop software to assist in calculations of
cost

2. Facilitate interinstitutional data exchange
3. Improve capabilities for external agency reporting
A follow-up to both the cost-finding and outcomes work

at NCHEMS is the Information Exchange Procedures (IEP) Project.
Institutions were invited to participate in an IEP Implemen-
tation project conducted in 1974-75. Basically, the IEP is
"a set of standard definitions and procedures for collecting
institutional information related to: costs of disciplines
and degree programs, outcomes of instructional programs, and

"152

general institutional characteristics. Results of the

project, together with a set of definitions and procedures,

were published in a 1975 report.153
Similar to the work at NCHEMS is a model developed at

the University of Kentucky "for the purpose of estimating

either the average direct cost or average full cost of in-

 

l5lIbido , Pp. 1-50

152Charles W. Manning and Robert A. Huff, "A Prospectus
on the NCHEMS Information Exchange Procedures Implementation
Project 1974-75" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE, September
1974). p. l. ,u ' .

153Maureen Byers, "Information Exchange Procedures Out-
comes Study Procedures" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at WICHE,
February 1975).

74
Structional outputs at the departmental level."154 It is
not intended to be as comprehensive and sophisticated as the
NCHEMS model.
Rather, the thrust has been toward the development of a
costing tool which utilizes readily available aggregate
expenditure data to estimate the full cost of generating
various types of instructional outputs at the depart-
mental level, i.e., cost per student credit hour by
course level, and the cost of supervising different
types of students.

Both the NCHEMS and University of Kentucky models in-
corporated student personnel services into total institu-
tional costs. The IRC Model (see pages 65-66), however, iso-
lates cost analysis of student personnel services. Used in
conjunction with two other instruments ("Student Personnel
Services Objectives Assessment," and "Assessment of Outputs
for Student Personnel Services"), the "Guide for Cost Anal-
ysis of Student Personnel Services Strategies"

enables each person in student service activities to
indicate the percentage of his or her time during the
year that was devoted to achieving each objective, and
the percent of this time fpgnt on each strategy used
to achieve the objective.
Accompanying this Guide is a computational procedure for de-
termining the actual dollar costs.

These models seem to offer the most viable means extant

for an institution that wishes to undertake cost analysis of

 

 

 

154Thomas G. Braun and Jack B. Jordan, "Model Provides a
Method for Puttin Costs in Their Place," College and Univer-
sity Business 55 (December 1973): p. 20..

155Ibid. ‘

156

...... Wattenbarger and.Nickens,.TheiIRC Model for Input-
Output Analysis of Student Personnel Services, p. 4.

75

any portion or the totality of its educational endeavors.
The Financiai‘iias Function
of Student Personnel ServiCes
The financial aids function of student personnel ser-
vices has long been recognized as a necessary and appropri-
ate service activity. In 1949, the American Council on Edu-
cation described the types of services which help make up a
student personnel program. Among them was "Financial aid to

worthy students . . . as an educational experience in per-

sonal budgeting and responsibility."157

In the 1965 Raines study, which proposed a taxonomy for
student personnel services, financial aids was named as an
essential service function. In the following, the rationale
and scope of a contemporary financial aids program is sum-
marized.

'Working one's way through college' embodying the tra-
dition of self-help and economic independence from one's
parents has been characteristic of a certain percentage
of American college students from early times. With the
costs of attending college rising as much as 10 per cent
each year, it appears that both students and the govern-
ment (district, state and/or national) will necessarily
need greater financial resources in the future to pay
for education.

Therefore, both part-time jobs and financial subsidy, in
the form of loans, grants or work scholarships, are be-
coming a greater necessity for an ever-increasing number
of students. The student personnel worker plays a crucial
role in working with students whose entrance into or egg-
.tinuation in college is impaired by lack of finances.

 

157Blaesser and Crookston, "Student Personnel Work-College
and University," p. 1417.

158Ju‘n'ior‘Colle'g‘e Student Personnel Programs, Raines,
Fordyce et al., TA‘Taxonomy of’Junior College Student Person-
nel Services," pp. 16-17.

76
Monroe affirmed the necessity of financial aids as a
service function in his description of student personnel ser-
vices for community colleges. And in the context of a broad-
ened and increasingly complex financial aids picture, a
specially trained administrator is essential.

With the advent of large amounts of federal work-study
money, student loans, and state and private scholarShips,
an expert financial-aids person, with some background in
accounting has become essential. In other words, finan-
cial aid has become big business for community colleges
to administer, and the granting agencies usually require
carefully prepared applications from the students and
accurate reports on the use of funds. In fact, it is

no simple task for the personnel staff to keep abreast
of the many scholarships and loan funds. Large urban
community colleges have also found it expedient to hire
a person who knows how to procure student-assistance
funds for the college. The business of procuring funds
has, for all practical purposes, become a sciepgg beyond
the grasp of an amateur financial-aids person.

Finally, the NCHEMS Cost Analysis Manual presents the
most comprehensive and contemporary definition of financial
aids as the function is undertaken in higher educational in-
stitutions.

(Financial aids) Includes all grants, loans, or work/
study assistance to students awarded by and/or adminis-
tered through the institution. This aid can be derived
from federal, state, local, private, or institutional
sources.

(1) Grants: All stipends, tuition, fee remissions, and
gifts to students that are outright awards and are not
contingent upon services to be rendered by the student.
Includes all fellowships and scholarships to graduates

or under-graduates. Also included are any funds from
specialized training grants which are specifically des-
ignated for stipends as well as tuition waivers for re-
funds, as long as the rant is need-based. The Education-
al Opportunity Grants (ECG) would be included here.

 

159Charles R. Monroe, Profile of the CommunifinOllegfi

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1972), p. 176.

77

(2) Loans: Funds made available to students for assis-
tance on a loan basis. The source of these funds may

be gifts, endowment income, other institutional funds,
private sources, and/or appropriations or governmental
agencies. National Defense Student Loans would be in-
cluded here. Excluded are short-term loans (usually

three months) available to students regardless of need.

(3) Work/Study Assistance: The extension of financial
aid support to students through the College Work/Study
Program in which federal or state government contributes
partial monies for the payment of services rendegsd by
students and required for financial assistance.

 

In this study the financial aids function of Lansing
Community College was chosen to illustrate productivity mea—
sures needed to formulate a model. Selection of this partic-
ular function was appropriate in view of the scope and impact
of the financial aids department at that college. In the
academic year on which this study focused, financial aid was
granted to approximately 4000 students, representing almost
25% of the total enrollment. Awards granted numbered approx-
imately 5700, and the monies dispensed approached a total of

161

two million dollars. Clearly, this was a substantial seg-

ment of the student personnel department.

Summary of Literature Reviewed
In this chapter, selected literature concerning the con-
ceptual setting and components of a productivity model were

reviewed.

 

160TCpping, "Cost Analysis Manual Field Review Edition
Technical Report 45," pp. 194-95.

161"Lansing Community College Distribution of Financial
Assistance," internal report of Financial Aids Office, Lan-
sing Community College, May 1975. For copy of report see
Appendix C.

78

Accountability and its various definitions were dis-
cussed in the first section. While historically precluded
by the doctrine of educational determinism, accountability
has currently assumed a foremost position in educational en-
deavors. Reasons noted in the literature for this recent
emphasis included: shifting sense of purpose and accessibil-
ity for higher education, political and social changes, fi-
nancial shortages (in part due to a widening credibility gap
between higher education and its varied constituents), col-
lective bargaining among faculty, and increased technical
capabilities.

Emphasis on accountability has significant implications
for higher education. Two forms of accountability which may
result are output-oriented management methods, and utiliza-
tion of external assessment.

Lessinger viewed accountability as a reflection of the
demand for increased productivity. The concept of produc-
tivity was the subject of the second section of this chapter.
Various definitions were reviewed, followed by discussion of
productivity applied to the public sector, to service-oriented
endeavors, and in particular to higher education. Despite
potential limitations and legitimate conceptual concerns re-
garding application of productivity to higher education, it
was recognized that first, productivity utility is not only
viable, but second, that it may in fact be mandated by con-
temporary demands for accountability.

In the third section, efforts to evaluate student per-

79
sonnel services were summarized. An evident and major crit-
icism of this effort was reliance upon survey and quantitative
data. Several authors called for application of a more sci-
entific method of inquiry. Difficulties which have charac-
terized evaluation attempts included lack of adequate and/or
established criteria, lack of longitudinal data, lack of
stated goals against which to measure achievement, and lack
of success in controlling or accounting for the many varia-
bles which affect the provision of student personnel services.

A review of dissertations concerned with evaluation of
student personnel services confirmed the predominance of sur-
vey methods, revealed the same difficulties stated above,
and further substantiated the allegation that student per-
sonnel services have not been adequately or accurately eval-
uated.

The fourth section of Chapter II was divided into three
sub-sections. The first of these contained a review of major
goal-setting efforts which have been undertaken within higher
education. The second sub-section contained a definition of
objectives and a description of the utilization of Management-
by-Objectives to derive measurable objectives for both higher
education in general, and for student personnel services in
particular. Substantial application of MBO testifies to its
usefulness as a viable method for identifying objectives and
for implementing improved management methods in higher educa-
tion. The third sub-section was a presentation of literature

concerned with identification and measurement of outcomes for

80
higher education. Thus far, NCHEMS at WICHE has undertaken
the most comprehensive effort toward this end.

Cost input and cost analysis were the subjects of the
fourth section of the Chapter. There was a definition of
costs which is pertinent to this study, followed by a review
of the efforts undertaken to derive unit costs for higher
educational institutions.

In the final section there was a description and defi-
nition of the financial aids function of student personnel
services as it is currently defined and practiced in higher
education institutions. Lastly, information summarizing the
extent of financial aids within Lansing Community College

was presented.

CHAPTER III

DERIVATION OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES

Five sections comprise Chapter III of this study. In
the first, the goals and objectives of the financial aid
department at Lansing Community College are delineated.
These comprise the necessary common foundation for the out-
put and input components of the productivity measures. The
second_and third sections contain description and illustra-
tion of the procedures employed to derive both input and
output components of a productivity model. In a fourth sec-
tion, the actual productivity measures for financial aids
during the 1974-75 academic year are computed and displayed
according to three unit measures: per number of students
served, per number of awards granted, and per amount of dol-
lars dispensed. In each case, the productivity measure is
derived for achievement of each objective and for the com-
poSite of financial aids objectives. In the fifth section
is a summary of the methods utilized and the results ob-
tained in derivation of the productivity components.

Before proceeding to the major content of Chapter III,
it seems appropriate to indicate why the format of one com-
prehensive chapter incorporating both method and result has
been adopted in contrast to the conventional dichotomy of
one chapter for methodology followed by one chapter for pre-

81

82
sentation of data. The format adopted is dictated by two
conditions. First, the study itself departs from the tra-
ditional scientific inquiry in that it is not a statistical
treatment within a specific research design. Rather, it is
intended to be an exploratory and descriptive effort toward .
model-building. Hence, there is no body of data to be
treated and reported in statistical fashion. Second, the
nature of the data and information utilized do not lend
themselves to conventional presentation. It has been selec-
ted and derived for illustrative purposes. It seems logical,
therefore, to avoid redundancy by incorporating data into
the explanation of and progression toward the building of

the productivity model.

Goals and Objectives of Financial Aids

Because this study focuses upon achievement of a spe-
cific department within a community college, no attempt was
made to relate performance to total institutional goals.
Further, no procedure was employed to identify or arrive at
a consensus of goals since the productivity model is designed
for primary use by the administrator who allocates budget
and responsibility within his department. Finally, Harshman's
research relating goal-setting to student personnel services
revealed major short-comings which preclude reliance upon
the major goal-setting methodologies for derivation of

Specific.student personnel goals.l

 

lCarl Leonard Harshman, "An Analytical Model for Insti-
tutional Goal Development: A Survey of Selected Student

83

The goals for financial aids, i.e., broad generalized
intended ends, used as the basis for operationalizing objec-
tives were those determined by the financial aid director at
Lansing Community College. This method of goal-setting was
appropriate within the parameters of the productivity model
toward which this study aims, and was consistent with the
philosophy of MBO. Goals delineated for the five year period
(1970-1975) during which this study was undertaken were:

1. To obtain and make available adequate funding for
financial aid to Lansing Community College students;

2. To develop, with the help of Data Processing, oper-
ational procedures to:

(a) monitor academic standing and progress of stu-
dents receiving financial aid; and

(b) monitor the number of students, amount of funds,
and degree of student need;

3. To develop an evaluation system for:

(a) the total financial aid department (via the
MBO method), and

(b) the services to financial aid students (via 2
student survey and/or evaluation instrument.

Specific objectives for the financial aid department,
in accordance with MBO methods, are mutually determined annu-
ally by the director of financial aids and his supervisor,
i.e., the Dean of Students. For the year in which this study
occurs, nine objectives were formulated (See Appendix D for

MBO.documents.which include each objective accompanied by

 

Personnel Workers in Ohio Higher Education" (Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Ohio State University, 1972).

2Neil Shriner, interview at Lansing Community College,
Lansing, Michigan, 6 May 1975.

84
its evaluation criteria.) Of those, one (Number 7) per-
tained to implementation of a placement center by an admin-
istrator not yet hired, hence is tangential to the financial
aids department and is excluded from consideration in this

study. The remaining eight could be categorized according

3

to the typology of objectives delineated by Odiorne for

MBO: routine, resolution or problem-solving, creative or de-
velopmental, personal growth and development. They were:

1. To administer programs of student financial aids,
employment placement, and veterans' services
(ROUTINE)

2. To plan, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive
program of student financial aid including federal,
state, institutional, and local private funds.
(ROUTINE)

3. To provide counseling services to students, in or-
der to maximize the effectiveness of both the fi-
nancial aids programs and the student employment
program.

(ROUTINE)

4. To establish and maintain effective relationships
with community agencies, business and industry in
order to establish new financial aid sources and
open doors for employment opportunities for students.
(ROUTINE)

5. To establish, implement, and evaluate new federal,
state, institutional, private foundation, and local
donor programs of financial assistance.
(DEVELOPMENTAL)

6. To plan, organize, and implement a more effective
data processing system to maintain financial aid
and college work study information and monitor all
financial aid related to need and academic progress
for federal financial aid programs.

.(RESOLUTION)

 

3George S. Odiorne, Management by Objectives (New York:
Pitman, 1965).

85

7. (objective excluded from consideration)

8. To evaluate the financial aids, placement and veter-
ans' services to determine the effectiveness for
students at the college.

(DEVELOPMENTAL)

9. To pursue a program of self-improvement in or er to
perform more effectively as an administrator.
(PERSONAL)

These eight objeCtives were the departure point for deriving
both the cost input and quality output components necessary
for computing the productivity measure of the financial aids
department.

Before proceeding to the derivation of either component,
it seems appropriate to elaborate upon the role and respon-
sibility of the financial aids director. This person not
only delineated long-range goals and established (with con-
currence of his supervisor) the specific annual objectives,
but supervised and directed the entire financial aids func-
tion at Lansing Community College. A synopsis of his annual
duties, therefore, would include formulation and deployment
of the departmental budget, training and supervision of approx-
imately ten staff members, completion of audits and reports,

and maintenance of all operations necessary to serve an un-

duplicated clientele in excess of 4000 students.

Cost Component (Input Factop)
”of the Productivity Measure“
Two methods for deriving the cost to administer student

personne1.services were identified. While each contained

 

4"Administration by Objectives Documents, 1974-75" (Lan-

86
applicable procedures, neither was, by virtue of overall pur-
pose and final product, unilaterally transferable as an appro-
priate method to derive cost input for a productivity model.
The first method resulted from the Cost Finding Principles
project at NCHEMS. It was described in a detailed procedures
manual5 which guides the user through the cost finding pro-
cess. The second method was developed in Florida through a
statewide student personnel services consortium of twenty-
six community and junior colleges. The instruments designed
and results of the project were reported in The IRC Model for
Input-Output Analysis of Student Personnel Services.6 Major
facets of each method are presented in the following.
NCHEMS Model
Purpose of the NCHEMS costing procedures was:

. . . to give postsecondary education institutions a way

to determine the full cost of resources used in achieving

institutional objectlves.

The recommended procedures define the methodology for

identifying, assigning, and allocating cost information

to the programmatic activities of institutions of higher
education.

 

sing, Mi.: Lansing Community College, Division of Student
Personnel Services, adopted 1 July 1974).

5James R. Topping, "Cost Analysis Manual Field Review
Edition Technical Report 45" (Boulder, Col.: NCHEMS at
WICHE, 1974). ‘ . --

6James L. Wattenbarger and John M. Nickens, The IRC M0del
for Input-Output Analysis of Student Personnel ServiCes
(Gainsville: University ofFlorida,Florida Community Junior
College Inter-Institutional,Research Council, 1973). ,

7

Topping, "Cost Analysis Manual," p. v.
8 .

Ibid., p. iii.

87
A four step process comprised cost findings. Included
were: (1) account croSSover, whereby accounts in a fund
accounting system are matched with activity centers (as de-
termined by a Program Classification Structure); (2) direct
cost studies, whereby analyses of aggregate coSt categories
are conducted to gather additional information that aids in
assignment of costs to activity centers; (3) capital cost
studies, whereby analyses of capital asset records are per-
formed to arrive at an annual use charge for use of capital
assets; and (4)support coat allocation, whereby costs
lodged in support activity centers are transferred to final
cost objectives. For each of the four steps, various defi-
nitions and parameters are supplied to the user. Overall,
the procedures were designed for a total institution, and
aim to determine the full costs of all resources utilized
to achieve institutional objectives.
IRC Model
In contrast to the NCHEMS model, the IRC model focused

upon the student personnel dimension of the institution.
Three instruments were constructed to correspond to and
achieve a three-fold purpose.

. . . to assess the importance of objectives, how they

are achieved, to what extent they are achieved, and

how much it9costs per objective per student in any

given year.

After the initial steps were completed, the cost

 

9Wattenbarger and Nickens, The IRC Model for.Input-
Output Analysis of Student Personneleervices, p. i.

88
finding was achieved by allocating salary costs of personnel
to specific objectives. A11 salaried personnel identified
strategies used to achieve objectives, and determined the
percentage of their time spent on each strategy. A compu-
tational procedure was used to calculate the total cost per
FTE (full-time equivalent student) for each objective. Over-
all, the procedure was designed solely for student personnel
services, and ultimately allocated salary costs alone to
achievement of objectives.
Procedures Used to Formulate Cost Component

To devise a method of cost allocation appropriate to
a productivity measure, facets of both the NCHEMS and IRC
models were juxtaposed with newly formulated procedures.

Four elements characterize the process: (1) categories, or
base units to which costs are allocated; (2) dimension or
measure used to allocate costs; (3) actual costs allocated;
(4) outcome parameters of cost allocation. Each is explained
in the following paragraphs.

(1) Whereas the NCHEMS model allocated cost to activ-
ity centers within the institution (as identified by a Pro-
gram Classification Structure), both the IRC and the proposed
productivity model utilize student personnel objectives as
the basis for allocation. The IRC model, however, employed
objectives identified through consensus of student personnel
administrators. In the model proposed here, the objectives
are those identified and agreed upon by a single administra-

tor and his supervisor using the MBO method.

89

(2) The dimension or measure used to allocate costs in
all three models was time expenditure, self-reported by the
personnel in question. NCHEMS provided survey instruments
where percentages of time were allocated to specified activ-
ities. IRC provided a list of strategies needed to achieve
objectives. Personnel allocated percentages of time to these
strategies, which were then summed to derive total percentage
of time spent to achieve each objective. It was assumed in
the IRC model, however, that student personnel administrators
were accountable for all objectives of the student personnel
division. In the productivity model formulated for this study,
the IRC method has been adapted so that a single administra-
tor allocates percentages of time to the MBO objectives of
his department alone.

(3) Costs allocated in the NCHEMS model were all the
resources of the institution, in contrast to the IRC model
which utilized salary resources alone. In the model formu-
lated here, all direct costs, as defined by NCHEMS, are allo-
cated to objectives. These direct costs provide an appro-
priate representation of the monies available to a specific
administrator in the administration of his department. They
include:

-inStructional/research/public service personnel

compensation
-administrative/support personnel compensation
-other staff compensation 10

,,,, -supplies and_services expenditures

 

10Topping, "Cost Analysis Manual," p. 57.

9O

(4) The outcome of cost allocation in the NCHEMS model
was coSt per program activity center; and in the IRC model
it was cost per FTE for each student personnel objective.

In the proposed productivity model, the outcome of cost allo-
Cation is cost to achieve financial aid objective per student,
award, and dollars. In all three models cost allocation is
performed for a one year period.

In sum, therefore, the method of cost allocation for-
mulated for a productivity measure includes MBO objectives as
the base unit or category, percentage of time allocated to
objectives reported by a single administrator, direct costs
utilized in achieving his set of objectives, and the annual
cost per objective in terms of students served, awards granted,
and dollars dispensed.

Derivation of Cost (Input)Component

In this sub-section, the procedures developed and de-
scribed above to perform cost allocation are applied to the
financial aids department of Lansing Community College.

The initial step was to identify the objectives for
which the financial aids department would be held accountable
during a one year period. These were readily available in
the MBO documents adopted for the 1974-75 academic year. As
noted'above (see pages 84-85), there were eight objectives
to be achieved.

To each of these eight objectives, the administrator
was asked to allocate the percentage of his annual time de-

voted to achievement of the objective. (See Appendix E for

91

allocation form.) It was also necessary to allocate time of
additional professional and support personnel to the financial.
aid objectives. This was accomplished in a two step process.
First, the director of financial aids identified the percen-
tage of each staff member's annual time spent on financial
aids. Secondly, each of those specific percentages was allo-
cated to the eight objectives according to the same propor-
tions used by the director. The rationale for applying the
director's percentages to all staff members rests upon the
assumption that to accomplish objectives, the director will
deploy all resources (including personnel) in a manner re-
flecting his own effort. In pilot tests using NCHEMS costing
procedures, this method and rationale for allocating staff
time has been substantiated.11

The annual financial aids budget, presented in Table 1,
was the basic source document for determining what amounts
were eventually expended to achieve the eight objectives.
From that budget, accounts pertaining specifically to finan-
cial aids, and expended at the discretion of the director
were identified as costs to be allocated. Amount in these
accounts totaled $95,443.00. Accounts were arranged to cor-
respond with the four direct cost categories delineated in
the NCHEMS model.

In Table 2, the combination of categories, costs, and

percentages are displayed, resulting in a distribution of

 

llTopping, "Cost Analysis Manual."

92

 

 

oo.m¢¢smm@ Hmpoupsm
oo.oo¢.a Hobmae 8cm moosmnomsoo Hm
oo.man.m psosaasam me
oo.ooo.m nooaeAcm coeoseesoo ea
oo.oow.m momsomxm cam moaammsm mowmmo Hm moowbnom cam mmfiaaasm
oo.ooa.m Aaesem\ssozv noeaa psoespmtmoaasamm 4H
oo.ooa.m Assasmomv noeaa psocsemumoaemamm ma
oo.OOm.m Aosae
pammv Hossomsom enemasmnmoHHmHmm so
oo.mem.nm Acsaa . cosponsoasoo
Hasmv Hoqqomnom pHOQQSmImoHHmem mo Hoqsompom pnoamsm
oo.OmO.Naa case Haas.msoeseenasase<-mcassamm Ho cosponsoasoo
Hmsqomhmm\obflpwhpmflsflsc«
Q 0 O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O I O O gOflPwmgmgaoo
Hossomnom ooH>Hmm oaapsm
nosmomom\ams0HposspmsH
psdos< psdoooa Mo meHa panooo¢ anomopwo pmoo

 

 

Amema smapmmmm m .ZOHmH>mm 9200mmv

mwl¢>mfi mom emwflbm Ezmzmo<fim 92¢ mQH< Q<Hoz¢sz momaaoo WBHZDSSOU wszz<H

H mam¢e

93

.mpmoo

pooaflu.maapsmsoo as mmHQmSOHHom was mmaamnmaonom mowsaoxm Hocos mammoz one .sommoa oswm
maze How hanmnonm .Hopoosac mean Hmfloscsflm one no sowponomww one no copsnflhpmac pom

mofisoa ..o.fl .psossambom Hmaocom HO\u:m soapsPHpmsH one an coma“ ma mums“ Ho HMmHQOHc

omswoop .Hocos aPH>fiposcon one as soapmooaam pmoo scam cocsaoxo ma anomopwo mane*

.Amsma hamssnom w comaboa .ewma mesa cmpmouw .moofl>nmm Hossomnom vaccSpm Ho soamabam
.omoaaoo assasssoo msamssg ”.az .msanssqv enema we .pomcsm caa asaosssame “mombom

 

 

 

oo.m4e.mmma comesm Hobos

oo.oomdwmaa Hmpopnsm

oo.ooo.ma spasm smog psoesem mm

oo.oom.~e maasmssaosom accesses Ho eesom em

oo.OOm.m omoaaoo spassssoo consonansoapasa mm

oo.ooo.ema mecca measoesz saga mm *naasnaoaaoa
was mmflgmnmaonom

Pzdosd psdooo< Ho oHpHe Pacooo< anomopmo pmoo

 

 

 

GGSSHpQOD I H mam¢a

94

mom.~¢m.¢mo

00.nea.mma

 

manpoe

 

00.Nmm arm 00.0mm X04 00.00e.a 00.004.H arenas .oosoaoesoou
0m.mom.a amm 00.000.m $00 00.mam.m 00.mem.m esosaasao-
00.0me.¢ arm 00.000.m soon 00.000.m 00.000.m nooaeaon cooosscsoo-
00.00H.~ » arm 00.00N.N a X00 00.00e.m 00.00e.m a moaaaasm ooaaeo-

mmoa>uom new moflamasm

0m.mmm.e amm 00.0mm.e aom 00.00H.0 00.00a.0 Aaesen\xaozv mocam accuses-
0m.~me.~ arm 00.0mm.m x0m 00.00H.m 00.00a.m Asmasmoev macaw csoesen-
00.mem.~ amm 00.00m.m nooa 00.00m.m 00.00m.m osac pecan
00.0mm arm 00.004 xooa 00.00e cascaoeo-
m0m.aea.0 xmm 00.nam.0 xmm 00.4H0.m successes-
0m.me0.e a arm 00.4ae.e a xooa 00.4Ha.e a aeocoeoom-
00.nem.mma osae asset

COHpmmcmasoo Hocsompmm whoamsm

0m.eao xmm 00.0mm mos 00.00m.0 posses mecca-
om.amm.m arm 00.0s0.m mom 00.0mm.ea posses 00mph-
00.0mH.mHa arm 00.00N.0Nm xooa 00.00m.0ma eocoosae-

00.0m0.wea cosponsoasoo

Hmccomucm\m>fipmhpchHE©<

c 0 o o I o o o I o o o o c o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o COHPmmCQQSOO ngqomhmm mOH>onm

oaansm nonsmmom\amsoaposapmsH

Nag x mav mo>ac Ana x Mmu moeae
co>aeoo.n0 nooaco op no>acoo.p0 voonco oo
cu condooaa< couscoaa< o>oano< on 009000HH< psmam nouomcsm maomopmo pmoo
mpmoo pocuan mafia mo * pscam mw Amv mo x pesosd pszos<
Asa lav lav Ana Amy lac

 

 

mm>Heomhmo mQH< Q<Hoz<sz m>mHmo< OB memoo HommHQ adeoe mo ZOHB<OOAA<

N mqm<e

95

total actual dollars (i.e., direct costs) expended to achieve
financial aids objectives.

In Table 3, the total direct costs are allocated to
the specific objectives of the financial aids department
according to percentages of time spent to achieve them.

Having determined the cost utilized to achieve each and
all objectives, it is possible to compute the cost (input)
component of the productivity measure in relation to students
served, awards granted, and dollars dispensed. This infor-
mation is displayed in Table 4. Derivation of cost per ob-
jective in relation to each unit measure completes the cost

input, or denominator portion of the productivity measure.

Quality Component (Output
Factor) of the Productivity Measure

In this section, the proCedures developed to derive the
quality, or output, component of the productivity measure are
described and illustrated. A determination of quality con-
notes evaluation; the objectives for the financial aids de-
partment, as delineated by the NBC process, together with
their attendant criteria, provide the basis for evaluation.
Both quality and quantity of performance are, by nature of
the criteria established, incorporated into the evaluation
process. Also inherent in the criteria is the necessity to
obtain a dual evaluation: from the supervisor of the financial
aids director (as dictated by the philosophy of MBO), and from
students (as dictated by the nature and content of the objec-

tives themselves). The procedures developed to obtain both

9(3

.0000 000000000 op 0000000 #0: >p0>0p00 no 90000 003 0m msflcflmscm .00>Hpomwno 0000 000020000 o>00£om op nopoo
I000 0:» an 0090QM0000 050» 005000 Ho pczosm may 00 .0mm ampOp 00>Hpomnpo op 009000H00 080p Ho mmmmpcmopmm*

 

H¢O.mm~4Hw mm>.Hmm.mm mm>.amm.mw mmw.amm.mw mm0.0mmqmw www.mmMANm 00.00maaw mom.mwwqu mq<eoe

 

00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00.000 00.40 0.000000memep .moamemusoo-
400.00 44.000 44.000 44.000 44.000 000.040 00.004 00.000 000.000.000000s00s00u
00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000.0 00.000.0 00.000 000.000.400

0000>000 0mpomnpcoou

00.00 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 04.000 0 00.444 0 00.000 0.000.00000000000 00000o-
0000>00m 0:0 mmflanmsm

00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000.0 00.000 00.000 000.000.400000000
\xnozv 00000 pzm0zpml

00.00 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.040 00.000 00.000 000.004.0000000s0000
00000 #000390:
00.00 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 000.000.00ves0p 0000:

00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.040 00.00 00.00 000.0000Vos0eaceo-

000.400 000.040 000.040 000.040 000.040 004.000.0 00.000.0 000.000.0 0000.004.00vmsseoeoonu
04.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.040.00 00.004.00 00.000.00 000.040.4000000oaocm-

esae 0000-

Hoqcomnmm #000050

00.00 00.040 00.040 00.040 00.040 00.000.0 00.400 00.044 000.000.00waepsos 00000:
00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 00.040 00.000 00.00 000.0000 empsos 00000-

000000 0 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.404.00 00.040.40 00.000.00 000.000.000veo0ooa00-
Hoscomhmm\m>0900900:080<

 

 

I O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q Hmcgomgmm won-”>0Hmm OHHQSm
nonmomom\HOQOHposhpqu

00000 00000 00000 00000 00004 000000 000000 000000 00 000000 ecpso
no00< mpnoo eooa00

400>0pomflno 0:0 muomopmo #000

 

 

mm>Heombmo mQH< Q<Hoz<sz OHmHommm OB Qme¢ooqq< memoo eommHQ 90908
m mqm¢e

97

=.0o:000000< 00¢ H00ocmc0m Ho 000050000009 0000000 000035500 0000000: 000 0 x00cmaa< 00m .0008 00030

no 090» no 000 00 000000 0gp mo 0000000000 8000 0000000800 00 0000 000 0002000000 0:» Ho 00ohsommh HH0 0050009

0>Hpo0npo 009 0000 0>0000 Op 000: 00050000 000 0000 .00000300000 000 00000000onom ..0.0 .00000 #00000 mo 00000»
Ismsoo 0:0 800% 000500x0 00050000 know 0:» :0 000000000 mampOP 000000 000 .00030 .0000500 0800 smaoSpH<*

 

 

 

 

 

44m.m a *A4o.0amqm0wq
“00>0000mno 0>00£o< 000.0 040.0 040.0 040.0 040.0 000.00 000. a 044. 0 0000000300
on 0000 00m 0000 000000000 0000000
>N©.m a *NMdbmv
"00>0po0mpo 0>00zo< 400.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 040.00 000.00 000.00 0000000 00003<
op 00034 000 0000
000.400 *Aoommw
"00>Hpo0nno 0>00000 444.0 040.0 040.0 040.0 040.0 004.00 000.00 4Nm.mw 00>00m 00:00:00
op 0000300 000 0000
8 @w 3 ma» g Q» .00 00
8 0L
T. Z Z 70 Z .L T. 8
we 8 as 8 s ,2 c. o. 00 000000
a... m w w m % M... (Le 0030001000
No rs pa W1 W1 9 no we 0>0000< 00 0000 000000
.V ’2 Cl C. C. Ca .V 0
TL 9 g C0 C4 6 0 C0
0 m 0 m 4 m N H

00>00o0000 000
0>00£0< 00 0000

nc>0po0000 0mse0e00s0 0e00go< 0» 0000

 

 

QmmzmmmHQ mm<qqom Qz< .Qmez<mo mmm<3<
.Qm>mmm mazmasem mom mm>Heom0mo mQH¢ A<HQZ<ZH& mmm emoo

4 mqm<e

98
supervisor and student evaluation of financial aids perfor-
mance are described in the following.
Supervisor Evaluation of Financial Aids Achievement of
Objectives
To obtain the supervisor's evaluation of achievement of
financial aids objectives, an instrument and rating scale

were devised.12

The instrument, consisting of statements to
be rated on a scale of A - F, was based upon the implemen-
tation activities present in the college MBO documents. Ful-
fillment of the criterion accompanying each activity indi-
cated whether the activity had been performed, hence whether
the objective had been achieved. Each criterion, therefore,
became a statement on the evaluation form completed by the
Dean of Students. Ratings of A - B were allotted point values
of l - 5 respectively; a rating of F indicated there was no
evidence available to judge performance.

Accompanying the first objective, for example, were
nine implementation activities and their nine corresponding
criteria. The Dean of Students gave two responses of C
(3 points X 2 = 6), six responses of D (4 points X 6 = 24),
and one response of E (5 points X l = 5). Total points
earned by the director of financial aids on this objective,
therefore, was 35 (6+24+5 = 35). Dividing this point total
by the number of criteria (9) yielded a value of 3.888, or

the rating.for.the.first objective. In this same manner,

 

12See Appendix F for rating scale and evaluation form
used by supervisor.

99
ratings for each of the remaining seven objectives were ob-
tained. To obtain a composite rating, the total points acquired.
on all eight objectives (156) was divided by the number of
criterion statements (39), yielding an overall rating of 4.000.
All ratings for financial aids objectives achievement, as eval-

uated by the Dean of Students, are displayed in Table 5.

TABLE 5
SUPERVISOR EVALUATION: ACHIVEMENT OF
FINANCIAL AIDS OBJECTIVES

 

Objective Rating
1 3.888
2 4.166
3 3.625
4 3.333
5 4.333
6 5.000
8 3.500
9 4.666

composite

rating 4.000

 

Student Evaluation of Financial Aids Achievement of Objectives
To obtain an evaluation of financial aids services by
students, it was necessary to construct an evaluation instru-
ment to be administered to a sample of financial aids recip-
ients. A "Financial Aids Questionnaire" consisting of twenty
items was devised. By utilizing each criterion throughout

the M30 documents which pertained to direct interaction between

100

the financial aids office and students, eighteen items were
derived. Evaluation obtained for each item, therefore,
could be directly related to the objective from which it
originated. A rating scale identical to that used on the
supervisor evaluation was used.13 One of the remaining two
items on the questionnaire pertained to type of aid received
by the student; the other item was open-ended and solicited
suggestions and comments regarding financial aids services.

To select a sample of financial aids recipients, a
print-out listing all students currently receiving aid was
obtained from the Data Processing department at Lansing Com-
munity College. In the academic term during which the ques-
tionnaire was administered, the print-out listed 2,749 stu-
dents. Flipping a coin determined that the second student
become the first member of the sample. From that point,
every second student was selected except those for whom no
address was given. In this manner, a sample of 941 students
(or 33.2% of financial aid recipients) was obtained.

.Following a pilot study of twelve respondents which
was conducted on May 27-28, a mailing on 30 May 1975 to the
sample of 941 students resulted in a return of 309 question-
naires by 1 July 1975. No followeup was attempted because
the number of responses was large enough to yield a signifi-

cant result, and because a follow-up would have corresponded

..........

 

13See Appendix G for cover letter, rating scale, and
"Financial Aids Questionnaire."

lOl
questionnaires represented 33.8% of the sample and 11.2% of
the total population of financial aid recipients.

Although students may receive four types of financial
aid, (scholarship, loan, grant, employment), no effort was
made to stratify the sample since services rendered by the
financial aids office are uniform for each type of aid. Re-
turns in two categories did approximate the actual distri-
bution among type of aid, however, thus substantiating the
belief that responses realistically represented the total
population. Percentages of students receiving each type of

aid and the respective return are indicated in Table 6.

TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE OF AWARD TO
FINANCIAL AID RECIPIENTS

 

 

 

Type of Aid Actual % of % Distribution
Recipients of Returns
Scholarship 6.9% 15.8%
Loan 33.1% 33.0%
Grant 47.0% 37.6%
Employment 12.8% 13.5%

 

In order to compute student evaluations, it was first
necessary to tabulate responses to each of the eighteen items
on the questionnaire. Responses of A - E for each item were
allotted l - 5 points respectively; a response of F indicated

there was no evidence to evaluate performance. Point values,

102
together with number of usable responses for each item, are

displayed in Table 7.

TABLE 7
STUDENT RESPONSES TO FINANCIAL AIDS QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

Item Total Points Number of Respondents
(A=1, B=2, (309 minus F responses
. . ., E=5) and unanswered or un-

usable responses)*

 

 

2 622 217
5 561 169
4 895 258
5 938 272
6 871 280
7 789 258
8 679 228
9 705 225
10 805 244
11 768 240
12 554 207
15 722 255
14 824 256
15 811 257
16 870 262
17 941 285
18 525 186
19 845 262
.- 15.725- A .....,...u...\ 4,519

 

*Number of respondents is substantially lower in a few
cases, e.g., item numbers 3 and 18, because the nature of the
question encouraged a response of F. The number of unanswered
or unusable responses on any item never exceeded a total of 20.

103

Because the eighteen items correspond to criteria for
the financial aids objectives which are student-related, they
were grouped to obtain the student evaluation for each of the
four student-related objectives. Results of this procedure
are displayed in Table 8.
Composite Evaluation of Financial Aids Services: Quality
(Output)_Component

Supervisor and student evaluation of the achievement
of financial aids objectives were combined to form the com-
posite evaluation which is the output component of the pro-
ductivity model. For four of the eight objectives, the only
evaluation derived was that of the supervisor. Evaluation
of the remaining objectives is the average of both supervisor
and student ratings. It is recognized that fifty percent of
the composite for four objectives, and one hundred percent
of the composite for four objectives is obtained from a sin-
gle person. This distribution exists due to the nature of
performance being evaluated. For four objectives, where fi-
nancial aid activity pertained to internal operation alone,
the supervisor is the sole possible evaluator. In addition,
the system of M30, utilized by the college to establish ob-
jectives, dictates that the supervisor rate each manager's
performance. The four remaining objectives were accomplished
by activity directly pertaining to students. Their rating of
- performance, therefore, is averaged into that obtained from
the supervisor. The final output component necessary for the
productivity measure of financial aids objectives is displayed

in Table 9.

104

TABLE 8
STUDENT EVALUATION: ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENT-RELATED
FINANCIAL AIDS OBEJCTIVES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective Related Questionnaire Items Rating
Item Total Total
Number Points Respondents
(Table 7) (Table 7)
1 10 not student-related . . .
2 10 805 244
11* 768 f 240
13 722 255
14 824 236
16* 870 262
17 941 285
19 845 262
5,775 1,784 3.237
3 2 622 217
3 561 169
4 895 258
5 938 272
6 871 280
7 789 258
8 679 228
9 703 223
12 554 207
15 811 237
7.423 2.349 3.160
4 not student—related . . .
6 11* 768 240
16* 870 262
1,638 502 3.262
8 18 525 186 2.822
9 not student-related . . .

 

*Items 11 and 16 are used to evaluate objectives 2 and 6.

105

TABLE 9 ’
A. . COMPOSITE EVALUATION.QTY-FINANCIAL AIDS. SERVICES V

 

 

 

Objective Supervisor Student Composite
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
"""(Table"5)“"""(Table 8) """
1 3.888 . . . 3.888
2 4.166 3.237 3.701
3 3.625 3.160 3.392
4 3.333 . . . 3.333
5 4.333 . . . 4.333
6 5.000 3.262 4.131
8 3.500 2.822 3.161
9 4.666 . . . 4.666
all
objectives. 4.000 3.177 3.588

 

Productivity Measure of Financial Aids Services

In the preceding sections, both the cost input and qual-
ity output components of the productivity measure were de-
rived. When compared in accordance with the ratio defining
productivity measurement (output divided by input = produc-
tivity measure), the following measures of financial aid
productivity in achieving departmental objectives during

1974-75 can be stated.14

Productivity measure per: students served = .254
Productivity measure per: awards granted = .372
Productivity measure per: dollars dis-

_ pensed (100s) = 1.261

Because both cost and quality components were also derived
according to specific objectives, it is possible to compute

the productivity:measure for each objective. A11 productivity

 

l4Three measures are from final line of Table 10.

106

 

 

 

HmN.H ¢¢m.m@ msm. www.ma #mm. >mo.¢aw mmm.m opflmoQSoo
mm¢.mm mmo. mem.ma won. mom.OH ¢¢¢. mom.¢ m
¢HN.HN mwa. >¢N.Q 00m. mom.¢ H¢>. Hma.m m
¢N>.>N mwa. ema.m mom. ¢>m.m H¢>. HmH.¢ m
omo.mm mwa. mom.m mOm. >¢w.m Hes. mmm.¢ m
www.mm mea. mmm.m mom. >m¢.¢ H¢>. mmm.m ¢
¢m0.m FOH.H 80m. m¢>.m mam. mm¢.m Nmm.m m
mmH.m mmm. 0mm.a mmo.m m¢N.H mmm.m Ho>.m m
mmm.m m¢¢. @ >mm.m 0mm.aa m¢>.H ¢mm.w @ mmm.m H

313 3+3 5+3

895mmoz Ae mapmev onsmmoz A8 mapmev whammoz A¢ mapwev Am mapmev

see>ee useeH seeeee eseqH speeee esmeH peepso

noswohm pmoo Iosconm pmoo noscosm pmoo mpaamsa Hopasz
Kev Nov emu «as any amp “as
woQOmmHm meHHom wopqmnw munmz< cmbnom mesmczpm obflpoomno

 

 

m¢mw UHSMQ¢U¢ mhl¢>ma mom Bzmzam<mmm mQH< H¢HOZ<ZHm mo mmmDmdmz MEH>HBoDQomm

OH mam¢a

107
measures are displayed in Table 10. Computation of the pro-
ductivity measures for a one year period completes the pro-
cedures devised for formulating a productivity model appro-
priate to a specific function of student personnel services

in higher education.

Summary of Methodology for Derivation and
Illustration of Productivity Measures

In this chapter the productivity measures for achieving
financial aids objectives were derived and illustrated with
actual data from Lansing Community College during the 1974-75
academic year. The procedures corresponded to the steps
toward implementation indicated by Wilson and Finz (see page
11 above). The first step was to delineate the goals and ob-
jectives which underlie both components of the productivity
measure. A system of MBO provided the appropriate objectives.

The second step was to derive the cost (input) component
which is the denominator in the ratio defining productivity
measure. Two models for allocating costs to objectives were
examined and partially adapted in formulating a method appro-
priate to the productivity concept. The outcome of this pro-
cedure, i.e., the cost to achieve each individual and the
composite number of objectives, was displayed in Table 4 accor-
ding to three unit measures: number of students served, awards
granted, and dollars dispensed (in hundreds).

The third step was to derive the quality (output) com-
ponent which is the numerator in the productivity ratio. An

evaluation by both supervisor and students was undertaken of

108
how well the financial aids department achieved the objectives
specified by the MBO method. Procedures for conducting the
evaluations and methods used to combine them into a composite:
evaluation.were described. The outcome, displayed in Table 8,
comprised the quality (output) component of the productivity'
measure. '

The final step, in which the productivity measure was
computed for financial aids objectives in relation to each of
the three unit measures, was undertaken and illustrated in tbs:
fourth section of the chapter. The result, obtained by di-
viding quality output by cost input for each objective, is a
numerical value representing the productivity of financial
aids for one academic year. The productivity measures were
displayed in Table 10. Computation of these measures por-
trays one segment within a time series, thus illustrating the
potential formulation of a longitudinal productivity model
for any function cf student personnel services in higher edu-

cation.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of Study

In this study, there is a derivation of productivity
measures for a specific function of student personnel ser-
vices through formulation of both cost input and quality
output components for financial aids services. There are
three main chapters.

In Chapter I the conceptual basis of this study was
discussed. For many and diverse reasons, demands for accoun-
tability come from all constituents and financial benefactors
of higher education. One response to the call for accounta-
bility is an increased emphasis upon evaluation. While not
synonymous with accountability, evaluation in some form,
particularly with regard to effectiveness and efficiency, is
antecedent to it. Productivity is a concept which incorpor-
ates all these notions. Specifically, inputs and outputs of
a system are compared to demonstrate whether that system is
tending toward greater or lesser efficiency. Input is con-
sidered to be the resources used in producing the outcome,
and is expressed in cost terms. Output is indicated by a
measure of what was achieved. When derived through evaluation,
the output expresses quality of achivement. Hence, an admin-
istrator using productivity measures necessarily demonstrates

109

110
the application of resources to achieve specific ends (i.e.,
efficiency), at a measurable level of quality (i.e., effec-
tiveness)." He is not only guided in planning, decision-
making, and administration, but is thereby found accountable.

Little has been done yet, however, in the application
of productivity measures to higher education. Limitations
arising from transfer of productivity theory to education,
and from lack of satisfactory measures for input and output,
hinder the use of productivity models to respond to the need
for greater accountability. This study was undertaken in
order to derive a method whereby productivity might be applied.
to higher education. Because scant efforts have been made to
measure the outcome of service functions within colleges and
universities, a function of student personnel services (i.e.,
financial aids) was chosen to illustrate the derivation of
productivity measures.

In Chapter II of this study, selected literature was
reviewed regarding each concept relevant to derivation of
productivity measures. Six sections were included. The
first, second, and third sections were concerned with accoun-
tability, productivity, and evaluation of student personnel
services respectively. In the fourth section, literature
relevant to goal-setting, derivation of objectives (particu-
larly through use of management-by-objectives), and outcome
measures was reviewed. Subject of the fifth section was
cost analysis, and in the last section, literature was selected

to describe the history and scope of the financial aids func-

111

tion of student personnel services.

Chapter III contained a description and illustration
of the procedures devised to formulate productivity measures
for financial aids. Three processes were undertaken. First,
the goals and objectives which serve as the basis for both
cost and quality components were identified. Second, pro-
cedures were carried out to obtain the cost (input) component.
Third, the quality (output) component was constructed, in-
eluding evaluation of achieving financial aids objectives.
The input and output components were then compared, using
the arithmetic ratio which defines productivity, to express
a productivity measure for the achievement of financial aids
objectives. These measures were expressed in terms of three
unit measures: students served, awards granted, and dollars
dispensed in a single academic year.

Chapter IV of the study includes a summary, conclusion
and findings, discussion of productivity use, implications,

and recommendations for future research.

Conclusion and Findings

Due to the unconventional nature of this study, in
which no empirical investigation nor hypothesis-testing was
attempted, there can be no discrete set of conclusions stated.
Rather, one overall conclusion is presented: it has been dem-
onstrated that development of a single-factor productivity
measure, relating output to one type of input (costs) can be
derived for a function of student personnel services. No

attempt was made, nor is yet available elsewhere, to expand

112
the measures to total-factor productivity.

In practice, no satisfactory method has been found to
account separately for the contribution of each resource
input which, in combination with other inputs, produces
joint products. Existing techniques in the field of
economic analysis require so many measurements to be
taken under such closely controlled production conditions;
that only crude applications have been attempted in higheu?
education.

Before concluding that derivation of productivity mea-
sures was possible, it was necessary to implement several
procedures. These were presented and illustrated with actual
data from a comprehensive urban community college for one
academic year. Four items comprise a summation of the pro-
cedures.

1. Identification of objectives and their attendant
criteria upon which to base cost allocation and
evaluation of achievement. (See pages 83-85 above.)

2. Derivation of cost (input) component: the denominator
portion of the productivity ratio. (See:

Table 1 - Lansing Community College Financial Aids
and Placement Budget for 1974-75, Second
Revision 2 February 1975.

Table 2 - Allocation of Total Direct Costs to Achieve
Financial Aids Objectives

Table 3 - Total Direct Costs Allocated to Specific
Financial Aids Objectives

Table 4 - Cost Per Financial Aids Objectives for
Students Served, Awards Granted, and D01-
lars Dispensed)

3. Derivation of quality (output) component: the numer-

ator portion of the productivity ratio. (See:

 

1Paul L. Dressel, Institutional Research in the Univer-
sitz, p. 226.

113

Table 9 - Composite Evaluation of Financial Aids
Services)

4. Computation of productivity measures for each and
for the composite objectives of financial aids ser-
vices. (See:

Table 10 - Productivity Measures of Financial Aids
Department for 1974-75 Academic Year)
Discussion of Productivity Use for Student Personnel
Services in Higher Education

It must be remembered that a productivity measure is
basically a descriptive device, meant to be utilized in a
time series. In this study, measures were derived for one
segment of a potential series, i.e., one academic year. Re-
peated applications to the same student personnel function
over successive years, therefore, should indicate increased
or decreased productivity for the department being studied.

At that point, the productivity measures become indicators
of the efficiency in which output is produced by the resources
utilized.

Greater efficiency (i.e., higher productivity) is achieved
when either of three conditions prevails: cost input is held
constant while output improves, cost input decreases while
output remains constant, or increased cost input is accompanied
by a greater rate of increased output. Although the measures
computed in this study pertain to a single year, these rela-
tionships are already evident in comparison among objectives
in Table 10. One example exists within productivity measures

for students served in a single year. When quality output

114
increases (from 3.333 on Objective 4 to 4.333 on Objective 5).
and cost remains constant ($.74l to achieve both Objectives
4 and 5), the productivity increases from 4.497 to 5.847.

While there are difficulties and limitations which in-
hibit application of productivity to the entire spectrum of
higher education,2 there is reason to consider productivity
a viable and immediately applicable approach to a segment of
an institution such as student personnel services. First,
the measures of input and output which may be inconclusive
and/or inaccurate on a large scale can be realistically de-
rived for a single department. Second, the objectives which
serve as the basis for comparing input to output can be more
readily identified on a departmental level. Third, monetary
resources expended by a single department administrator can
be isolated and analyzed more easily than those monies appro-
priate to an entire institution. Fourth, the procedures de-
veloped in this study can be applied to any function of stu-
dent personnel services similar in operation to financial
aids as long as objectives exist or are developed.

When employed as trend analysis, or time series, produc-
tivity measures for any student personnel service contribute
toward greater accountability in four ways. They portray
past activity and indicate directions of future implementation
of services. They indicate aspects of the department which

.tend.toward.greater or lesser efficiency, hence identifying

 

2See pages 12-16 above for discussion of the use of pro-
ductivity measurement for higher education purposes.

115

activities needing analysis and/or adjustment. They reveal
direction and progress in a general sense without having to
describe the exact nature of the activity performed or ser-
vice offered. And finally, they are useful in model buildirg;
to represent an entire component of student personnel ser-
vices. If productivity is used in any or all of these four
ways, it will significantly aid in the provision of increased

accountability.

Implications for Application and Recommendations

for Future Research

Several recommendations, extensions, and applications
of the procedures devised in this study are possible. First
to be discussed are adjustments within the present procedures.

In regard to the cost input component, the means of
allocating annual time to objectives of the department Should
be extended and refined. In this study, the time allocation
‘was a subjective exercise on the part of the administrator
concerned. Before repeated productivity measures are com-
puted, more Stringent methods of time allocation, perhaps by
means of time study, historical analysis, and/or supervisory
verification, should be explored and adopted.

Two major improvements are needed with regard to the
quality or output components. The first has to do with ex-
pansion of the population which evaluated achievement of ob-
jectives. If the MBO method for identifying objectives is
retained, self-evaluation should be incorporated into the

composite evaluation. Another expansion concerns the student

116
sample of evaluators. Applicants to the service in question,
in addition to just thoSe who eventually receive financial
aid, should also evaluate services extended to them. A coma
parison between applicants and recipients may yield signifi-
cant differences in evaluation outcomes. Another population
which should evaluate performance of the department in ques-
tion includes those persons throughout the college who have
knowledge or experience with the department. Finally, the
fund suppliers for the department being studied must be con-
sidered legitimate evaluators.

The second major improvement has to do with the evalu-
ation instrument itself. It is admittedly crude and should
be refined and validated before further attempts at evalua-
tion are undertaken.

With regard to the application and derivation of pro-
ductivity measures beyond the scope of this study, seven
avenues of research are immediately evident. First, the is-
sue of quantity and quality of performance should be treated
more fully. In this study an attempt was made to incorporate
both dimensions into the evaluation component. It may be
more appropriate to treat them separately and to derive pro-
ductivity measures for each. Admittedly, criteria are more
easily established for quantitative activity; this does not
preclude, however, the possibility of developing separate
criteria for quality. A comparison of productivity measures
between these two dimensions within the same department might

supply an additional and revealing indication of performance

117
not presently available in the procedures developed for this
study.

Second, the procedures devised in this study should be
applied to other functions of student personnel services to
evaluate their utility as an overall means of examining effic-
iency.

A third extension of the work undertaken here is to
actually compute productivity measures in a time series, with.
attention to the potential causes of increased or decreased
productivity over time. Identification of potential causes
might well lead to further research. Computation of produc-
tivity measures in a time series would also be a necessary
and substantial contribution toward model building.

A fourth area of investigation concerns the objectives
which served as the basis for both components of the produc-
tivity model. In this study, MBO was the most appropriate
and available method of isolating departmental objectives.

In a different time and institution, other methods might be
appropriate, or implementation of a technique such as the
Delphi method to derive consensus about objectives could be
applied.

Similarly, a fifth area of research concerns the system
outcomes which are evaluated to comprise an output component.
Here, again, the MBO documents supplied an identification of
outcomes. A variety of outcome identification methods might
be used in other settings.

A sixth research problem suggested by this study is use

118
of productivity measures for comparisons across departments.
Within present theory, the nature of productivity is defined
as a trend indicator, i.e., meant to be applied in longitudi-»
nal fashion. Comparisons are meant to occur within the same
measures. If a commonality across departments could be ex-
pressed by the designation of some base figure, deviations
from that base might provide the means of cross-departmental
comparison. This base, however, would have to be determined
by substantial mathematical and philosophical justification.

A final research problem to be resolved in further use
of the procedures devised in this study concerns cost allo-
cation. If productivity measures were to be computed in a
time series, mathematical adjustments would have to be de-
vised and applied to account for the effects of inflation and
institutionally-dictated salary increments. Without this
adjustment, the resulting productivity measures would be un-
realistically decreased.

Although it seems that a variety of conceptual issues
and research problems attend the application of productivity
to higher education and the building of a fully developed
model, the procedures developed and illustrated within this
study provide a realistic starting point. Essentially, any
student personnel administrator who wishes to investigate the
productivity within his department has the means here to do
so. He will need to perform three operations: first, specify
his objectives in measurable terms; second, allocate his bud-

get to these same objectives to obtain cost input; and, third,

119
obtain an appropriate evaluation of how well (and/or to what
extent) his objectives have been achieved. By simple divisicui,
he can compute productivity measures. As with all innovatiorus
and adjustments to present practice, the first implementation.
of productivity will prove time-consuming and complex. He
should find the process justified, however, not only because
it will become more efficient and automatic with repeated
implementation, but because he will have developed a multi-
dimensional method of response mandated by the age of accoun-

tability in higher education.

APPENDICES

A. REQUEST AND PERMISSION TO USE BUDGET INFORMATION AT
LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE

120

TO: Dean William G. Schaar
FROM: Martha R. Smydra
SUBJECT : DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

DATE: November 19, 1974

The attached document is a proposal for a doctoral dissertation
to be submitted to Michigan State University. Its subject is
evaluation of student personnel services, and it has recently
been approved by my doctoral committee which is chaired by

Dr. James Nelson.

In order to develOp my topic, it will be necessary to utilize

data concerning costs and evaluative instruments of a specific
student personnel service. Hopefully the dissertation will emerge
as the initial procedure for construction of a productivity model
which will relate cost input to quality output. I believe it will
be a useful tool for a student personnel administrator who wishes
to monitor resources and/or plan deployment of resources.

I would like to request access to the necessary data from the
records and daily operation at Lansing Community College. It

may not be necessary to identify the institution in my thesis,
and the mention of "counseling” in the proposal is merely for
illustrative purposes. I will, of course, adhere to whatever
policies and guidelines the College wishes to establish regarding
utilization and publication of data.

I believe the planned dissertation will not only contribute to
the literature of evaluation, but can benefit the division of

Student Personnel Services at Lansing Community College in the
immediate future.

‘1;%%g%Z%W542¢§;njfl¢24C»/“

Martha R. Smydra

 

MRS:sb

Attachment

121

TO: President Philip J. Gannon

FROM: William Schaar, Dean, Student Personnel Services
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE CONCURRENCE/DWRTATION R13 UEST
DATE: . November 22, '1974 W ‘ ;%
.Attached you will find a copy of a memo from Mrs. Martha .
Smydra to me and a copy of her dissertation proposal.

Mrs. Smydra has been working with my office as a Part-time
Administrative Assistant for the past calendar year.

She has been working with Jim Nelson, and her proposal
has been approved. I would like to have your concurrence
in providing Marty budget information for the SPS Division.

as a basis for her model building in the area of a cost
indexing of Student Personnel Services.

What will the College gain?

a. A.working model for cost indexing Student Personnel
Services with a quality factor_included.

b. A beginning point on which we can have reasonable
background for budget development.

c. One very pleased Part-time Administrative Assistant
to the Dean of Student Personnel Services.

What will Mrs. Smydra gain?

a. Information for a doctoral dissertation.
I would be working with Mrs. Smydra. Your consideration
would be appreciated such that work might begin. Would ’

you return the attached material after you have read it
for my files. Thank you.

-William G. Schaar, Jr.
WGS:sb
Attachment (1)
122

125
B. DISSERTATIONS PERTAINING TO EVALUATION OF STUDENT PER.
SONNEL SERVICES (CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING)

Category 1: Perceptions and Reactions of Administrators, Fac-
ulty, Students, and Student Personnel Workers Re-
garding Effectiveness of Student Personnel Services

Daughtrey, John Patrick. "An Analysis of Student and Faculty
Reaction to Student Personnel Services at the University
of Florida" (University of Florida, 1953).

Goodman, Michael. "An Evaluative Survey of the Student Per-
sonnel Program at the New Jersey State Teachers College
at Montclair" (New York University, 1957).

Finley, Thomas McClure. "The Scope and Effectiveness of the
Student Personnel Services of the Junior Colleges of Penn-
sylvania" (University of Pittsburgh, 1958).

Shigley, E. Harold. "An Evaluation of Student Personnel Ser-
vices at Marion College" (Indiana University, 1958).

Fitzgerald, Laurine Elisabeth. "A Study of Faculty Percep-
tions of Student Personnel Services" (Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1959).

Harry, Ormsby L.. "A Study of the Student Personnel Services
at Michigan College of Mining and Technology" (Michigan
State University, 1960).

Gutsch, Kenneth U.. "A Survey of Student Personnel Services
in Selected Florida Community Junior Colleges and the At-
titudes of Presidents, Student Personnel Officers, Faculty
Members and Students Toward These Services " (Florida
State University, 1961).

Aubry, Alvin Joseph. "A Comparative Study of Questionnaire
and Interview Responses in an Evaluation of the Student
Personnel Services of Xavier University" (Indiana Uni-
versity, 1963).

Cox, Blanche. "Recommendations Relative to the Student Per-
sonnel Program of Dade County Junior College" (University
of Miami, 1963).

Zimmerman, Elwyn Ernest. "Student Perceptions of Student Per-
sonnel Services at Michigan State University, 1963).

Tamte, James Arthur. "How Faculty, Student Personnel Workers,
and Students Perceive Student Personnel Services at the
University of Denver" (University of Denver, 1964).

 

124

Bailey, Dallas Barnett, Jr.. "An Evaluation of Student Per-
sonnel Services in a College as Perceived by the Formal
Organizational Units of a College Community"" (Kent State
University, 1966).

Rankin, Gary Edmond. "Graduating Seniors' Perceptions of
Student Personnel Services at Colorado State College"
(University of Northern Colorado, 1966).

Yatros, John Edward. "Construction and Application of Two
Inventories for Use in College Student Personnel Work:
I. Student Personnel Services Needs Inventory; II. Fac-
ulty Preference Inventory for Student Personnel Functions"
(Indiana University, 1966). '

Bray, Gerald Winslow. "An Analysis of Student Personnel Func-
tions and Desired Level of Counseling Education in Commun-
ity Junior Colleges as Perceived by Selected Educators"
(Purdue University, 1967). .

Langston, Timothy Louis. "An Evaluation of the Student Per-
sonnel Services at Kent State College" (Indiana Univer-
sity, 1967).

Ross, Margaret Ann. "Administration, Faculty, and Student
Personnel Workers? Evaluation of Student Personnel Func-
tions" (Ohio University, 1967).

Harris, Douglas Clay. "Student Personnel Services at Indiana
University: An Evaluation" (Indiana University, 1968).

Johnson, Walter Michael. "Faculty Perceptions of Student Per-
sonnel Services" (University of Northern Colorado, 1968).

Johnson, Thomas Bradford. "A Study of Student Personnel Ser-
vices in Selected Illinois Four-Year Colleges and Junior
Colleges" (Northwestern University, 1968).

Todd, Will Roger. "A Study of Student Perceptions of the Effec-
tiveness of Student Personnel Services at a Large State
University and a Small State College" (Oklahoma State Uni-
versity, 1968).

Wisgoski, Alfred E.. "Attitudes of Community College Presi-
dents, Chief Student Personnel Officers, and Faculty
Toward the Student Personnel Point-of-View in Selected
Illinois Community Junior Colleges, 1967-68" (Northern
Illinois University, 1968). ‘ ,

Rhodes, Henry Kenneth. "A Study of Student Evaluation of Stu-
dent Personnel Services and Campus Environment in Selected
Junior Colleges" (Texas Technical University, 1969).

Wheeler, Helen Irene. "The Attitude of Selected Community

125

College Faculties Toward Student Personnel Services"
(Washington State University, 1969).

Bates, Dennis Logan. "Urban Challenge and University Respon-
ses: An Investigation of Five Student Personnel Functions
at Two Ohio Public Universities" (University of Toledo,
197C .

Maples, Wallace Rogers. "Functions of Chief Student Personnel
Administrators of Public Junior Colleges" (Indiana Uni-
versity, 1970).

Emerson, William Preston. "Faculty, Student, and Student Per-
sonnel Worker Perceptions of Selected Student Personnel
Services in the Community Colleges of North Carolina"
(Michigan State University, 1971).

Kaplan, Charlotte Siegel. "Graduate Students' Evaluation of
Student Personnel Services Available to Graduate Students
at the University of Mississippi" (University of Missi-
ssippi, 1971).

Stahl, Dick Allen. "Freshmen Perceptions of Student Personnel
Services at the University of wyoming for 1970-71" (Uni-
versity of Wyoming, 1971).

Galligan, Carl J.. "A Study of the Perception of Student Per-
sonnel Programs by the Professional Student Personnel Wor-
ders in Maryland Public Junior and Community Colleges"
(Catholic University of America, 1972).

Herr, James Robert. "Perceived Quality of Student Personnel
Services in Two Pennsylvania Community Colleges Differing
in Student to Personnel Worker Ratio" (University of wy-
oming, 1972).

Jones, Jean Kinard. "Students' Perceptions of Student Person-
nel Services at the University of Mississippi" (Univer-
sity of Mississippi, 1972).

Mortvedt, Donald Forbes. "Inventoried Perceptions of Key Ad-
ministrative Officers in Illinois Community Colleges Con-
cerning Student Personnel Services" (University of Illi-
nois at Urbana, 1972).

Shuman, Irven Gayle. "Resident Faculty, Faculty Administrators,
and Student Personnel Perceptions of a Program of Student
Personnel Services" (Arizona State University, 1972).

Terenzini, Patrick Thomas. "A Comparison of the Purposes of
Student Personnel Programs as Viewed by College and Uni-
versity Presidents and Chief Student Personnel Officers"
(Syracuse University, 1972). '

126

Vickers, Lee Arthur. "Student Perceptions of Student Per-
sonnel Services at Lewis-Clark State College, 1972"
(University of Wyoming, 1972).

Vande Guchte, Peter. "A Study of Relationships Between the
Use of Management-by-Objectives and Perceived Effective-
ness in Selected Community Junior College Student Person-
nel Units" (Western Michigan University, 1973).

Cowins, Bernard.' "Perceptions of Student Personnel Services
at the University of North Florida" (University of Okla-
homa, 1974).

Category 2: Examinations of Purposes, Organization and Admin-
istration of Student Personnel Services

Faul, George Johnson. "Organization of Student Personnel Ser-
vices in a Community College" (Stanford University, 1954).

Scott, William Lee. "A Study of Student Personnel Services
in Small Liberal Arts Colleges" (Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1959).

Brantley, Edward James. "A Study of the Student Personnel
Program at Clark College" (University of Colorado, 1960).

Yoder, Marlen Dean. "The Development of Guidelines for Student
Personnel Services in the Two-Year Community College"
(Oregon State University, 1965).

Goud, Nelson Henry, "A Social Systems Analysis of Junior Col-
lege Student Personnel Programs" (Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1967).

Swanson, Laura Joan. "A Study of Student Personnel Programs
in the Two-Year Colleges of the New England and the Middle
Atlantic States" (George Washington University, 1967).

Gillies, Richard Ebenezer. "A Method for Surveying Student
Personnel Services Programs in Two California Junior Col-
1eges" (University of California, Las Angeles, 1968).

Anderson, Robert Alexander, Jr.. "Description of Community
Junior College Chief Student Personnel Administrators Based
on Regional and Institutional Comparison" (University of
Utah, 1969). ‘ '

Beasley, Thad Gordon. "A Comparative Study of the Functions of
Student Personnel Services in the State Supported Colleges
and Universities of Arkansas" (University of Arkansas,l969).

Herren, Ralph Leonard. "A Survey of the Personnel Services at
the Public Junior Colleges of the Council of North Central
Junior Colleges, 1968-69" (University of Tulsa, 1969).

127

Milton, Furman Demetrius, Sr.. "An Appraisal of Student Per-
sonnel Staff Resources and Current Student Personnel
Functions in Texas Public Community Colleges" (East Tex-
as State University, 1969).

Mitchell, James Gerald. "An Appraisal of Evening Community ’
College Student Personnel Services in Western United
States" (Oregon State University, 1969).

Arkovich, Marvin Larry. "A Critical Analysis of the Organiza-
tion and Administration of Public Junior College Student
Personnel Services" (University of Texas at Austin, 1970).

Bucci, Frank Anthony. ‘"A Differential Evaluation of Personnel
Practices Affecting Student Personnel Administrators in
Public Four Year Colleges" (University of Connecticut, 1970).

Chevalia, Don Edwin. "A Survey of Selected Student Personnel
Services Offered in Two-Year Public Institutions in the
Southeastern Region of the United States" (Memphis State
University, 1970).

Pennington, Raymond Benjamin. "The Status of Student Personnel
Services in the Thirteen Community Colle es of North Caro-
1ina, 1968-1969", (Duke University, 1970 .

Reilly, William John. "Perceptions of the Origin, Development,
and Future of Student Personnel Services in the Community
Colleges of the State University of New York" (St. John's
University, 1970). _ , _

DeCabooter, Arthur W.. "Chief Student Personnel Officers in
Community Junior Colleges" (Indiana University, 1971).

Garrett, Philip Leroy. "The Development of a Model for a Stu-
dent Personnel Services Program in a State College" (Cath-
olic University of America, 1971).

Holland, Bobby Tyson. "Student Personnel Administrative Ser-
vices Provided by State Agencies for Community Colleges"
(Florida State University, 1971).

KauffMan, James Fredrick. "Contrasting Views of Purposes of
Student Personnel Work as Perceived by Educators and Prac-
titioners" (University of Denver, 1971).

Pierce, Robin L.. "A Study of Chief Student Personnel Adminis-
trators in Public Community Colleges Accredited by the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools" (Memphis
State University, 1971).

Parr, John Dee. "A Study of the Trends in Student Personnel
Functions in Selected Colleges and Universities in the
North Carolina Association - 1960 to Present" (University
of South Dakota, 1974).

128

Category 3: Efforts to Determine Criteria for Evaluation and
. Evaluation Methods for Student Personnel Services

Rackham, Eric Newton. "The Determination of Criteria for the
Evaluation of Student Personnel Services in Institutions
of Higher Learning" (University of Michigan, 1951).

Hage, RObert Silvers. '"A Revision of the Rackham Student Per-
sonnel Services Inventory" (University of Iowa, 1957).

Beckers, Wilmer Henry. "An Evaluation of the Student Person-
nel Program at the Auburn University School of Education"
(Auburn University, 1961).

Morris, Robert Burton. "Development of Criteria for Evalua-
ting Student Personnel Programs" (Pennsylvania State Uni-
_versity, 1964).

Robinson, Seldon C.. "Student Evaluation of the Adequacy of
Student Personnel Services in Selected Institutions of
Higher Education in Texas" (Texas Technical University,
1966 .

Badger, Herbert L., Jr.. "Evaluating Student Personnel Ser-
vices" (University of Southern Mississippi, 1967).

Herrington, William B.. "A Proposed Student Personnel Program
for Navarro Junior College" (Baylor University, 1967).

Devlin, Joseph Stuart, Jr.. "The Evaluation of Programs of
Student Personnel Services in Higher Education - A Synthe-
sis" (Florida State University, 1968).

Hargett, Earl Forest. "Informational Needs in Public Commun-
ity Colleges: Development and Application of Evaluative
Criteria" (University of Tennessee, 1969).

Hight, Mildred Emma. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Stu-
dent Personnel Services of Small Junior Colleges in Cali-
fornia" (University of Southern California, 1970).

Morris, William Robert. "Identification and Development of
Procedures and Criteria for Self-Analysis by Community
Colleges" (Oregon State University, 1970).

Kraeger, James Emerson.’ "A Comparative Study of Student Per-
sonnel Services in Five Private Institutions of Higher
Learning in Metropolitan New York" (Fordham University,
1972 .

Paulson, Donald Leonard, Jr.. "An Accountability Audit of Two
University Student Personnel Services: Student Activities
and Counseling" (University of Iowa, 1972).

129

Flint, Lowell Truman. "A Methodology for Deriving Behavioral
Objectives for Student Personnel Programs" (Duke Univer-
sity, 1975). “

Snowbarger, Gordon Lee. "Community College Evaluation Prac-
tices" (Colorado State University, 1974).

Category 4: Surveys of Scope and Quantity of Student Personnel
Services

Gray, Clarence Jones. "An Evaluative Study of the Student
Personnel Program for Men at the University of Richmond"
(University of Virginia, 1962).

Johnson, James Jay. "The Perceived Function of Personnel Ser-
vices in the Junior Colleges of Illinois" (Northwestern
University, 1966).

Karns, Lee Thomas. "The Status of Student Personnel Services
in the Seven State and Five Municipal Junior Colleges of
Oklahoma" (University of Oklahoma, 1966).

Bradley, Harry Leonard. "An Analysis of Student Personnel
Programs in the Community and State Colleges of Washing-
ton" (Washington State University, 1967).

130

C. LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE, MAY 1975'

131

NNoA .NN aaua<

Nachos anus-oooum nude.

on urns uaouauu <
0:» we Auxav uuaruoeo auouqauxouan<

.mmzu can .Amaz .uoum new ofinwuumo one: aucsvaun asuunuao: oscnhou wcuscuaon
.voo: nu: cozy uuuoouu on go: anus nuances cause use .nuazo use cu:u uuoa new canqwuuo so use usuaann <.

.5ua)a 03...:— a o>~uuuu 3a a.._—u1~—:.u 13:92...

.cmoH no duo: a: uus 93 “use any: nN::1:.r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, .sfimooa.n . moe.m oNcsn oaN.~ Nae coccescm no cases: iscca
oN.~na.«» NoN.n caa.Nen.Nw Nam.e NmN.Nee» «Na.a mam.one» ocm.N ann.NNnm NeN cecea< 16 Assess henna
woo.nn no neNqu no enNswm or Nmo.aN Na mac.c_ an causnaoaorsm d>acarzs5n
:ou«;u.: mo addum
waoqan nan can.mN neN occ.oo can aaa.oe eNe Nen.NN ans actor sees .cora
uzocaum 1:: caucus
aao.N Na one.N oN occ.n ma cee.N NN mae.a ma asses can.
. IOUHOucu 354 ammWWWJ
coo.na one NNm.NN New oaN.NN NaN 866.8“ or NmMAm as mosses Lea:
locqucm 3:4 «auctzi
«Nn.Ne naN mcm.Nn mNN Nn~.aN AN onmANN SN mam.ma as acczoa cesses;
. an na—:mNc-o:ua
enasmm. as ocN.oH NN aac.ma an aaaqu NN cacao on .mmm«
wanmuaz Nonstop
onao N ooN.N ma aNm.mH Nm SNN.a NN ch.c NN sausa.s_c;om
mzumuzz donate;
com a sac N can N amN N acN.a N caemmmNmNEMm
aqua~;a< 0u1>_u.
can a Nan.n rN ocs.n ca meN.n NN meaaN SN Laces
wcqz Nozua; a_uua_
SSQANNA Naa ooo.oo~ ooa cco.cn~ cca oco.me~ can occ.oe~ and sermons scam
ea< cadence orc__cn
coo1omN can canaoeN sen ooo.co~ oNN eNa.NN NcN NNN.NN Na secmoca.sesmm
- sue: owe—now Houonmm
«Na N oN one.” a ooosw NH Nao.~ a can.” o Amaracc.o;ca
ucoacuo>oo u:ucsum
.NN SNN Non.sn ”Na coo.nc omN aNm.Na so NNN.ca an Access ace naire
luadosum acumen? Qua
NNosaaN nan NeN.c~ oo ------ -u- ------ nu- ------ .. ocecc Neaasccoaam
a . do:0quooscx ammo
Non can can a ncN.Nan Nos NNn.ao an «Ho.ee sea annAan or soon assess.
~n.non » .NNo naa.oNn » Nae Nea4mn » NcN cNa.Na a «N nnm.NN N. Na
uncouuausau uaucoeo~nas
unsal< non-=2 ucaoa< nonesz ucsos< umbesz unsos< Nassaz mmm05< homes:
.N-o nN.cNaN annNaN NNuNNaN NN-~NaH NNuoNnH neaea< No cease

noz<HmHmm< A<Huz<th ho ZOuHDnHMHMHn mouaaoo wHHZDzzou oszz<A
nuad hi!

D.

132

LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE MANAGEMENT-BY-OBJECTIVES

DOCUMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AIDS (ADOPTED

1 JULY 1975)

1.’

2.

7.
8.

To administer programs of student financial aids,
employment placement and veterans' services

To plan, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive pro-
gram of student financial aid including Federal,
State, Institutional, and Local Private Funds

To provide counseling services to students, in order
to maximize the effectiveness of both the financial
aid programs and the student employment program

To establish and maintain effective relationships
with community agencies, business and industry in
order to establish new financial aid sources and
open doors for employment opportunities for students

To establish, implement and evaluate new Federal,
State, Institutional, Private Foundation and Local
Donor Programs of financial assistance

To plan, organize and implement a more effective
data processing system to maintain financial aid
and college work study information and monitor all
financial aid related to need and academic progress
for Federal Financial Aid Programs

(excluded from consideration)

To evaluate the financial aids, placement and vet-
erans' services to determine the effectiveness for
students at the College

To pursue a program of self-improvement in order to
perform more effectively as an administrator -

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

# .ucmeuummmo mooa>uom .mcmumuo> new
. ucmEmomHm .pN4 assocmcflm on» canoe: afinm
h v .ow>flooou our mucflmHmEoo Momma oz .o. IcoflumHou mcquo3 o>wumuomooU o samucNmz .v
camp
” .mEmumoum
_ or» no maaeooc on» so sauces» soaaoa
_ on Oahu on cam oofl>uwm ucwpsum O>Huoonm
Aw by .Uo>«ooou our upswmamfioo wonmfi oz .m _ cm :«muCAmE o» mcflmmmuw mumsvmpm umosvmm .m
as 1
M .ucoEuumaoa woofl>umm .mcmHOuo>
.uommcmz mmocsmsm _ pcm ucmEoomHm .Ufi4 Hmflocmcflm mg» no
onu can mucoosum mo some one 0» w mono: ecu muoonou urn» bemoan m mmofl>uom
A v c0wuommmwumm mo Ho>oa us we ummpsm .m fwoccomumm unoccum mo coon oz» Ou pcoEEoomm .m.
oumo
. .mou<
.memmn _ moofl>uom .mcmumum> cam .ucmEmomHm .oad
msosCAucoo n so oocwmucfims our _ Hmwocchm on» aanufl3 Emum>m mo>fiuoowno xn
can oHanwm>m mew mucoesoop 0&4 .H . CONumNDMNcfieod cm cfimucfime 0cm zmfianmumm .H
gonzo? 1.
. 1
30H>om mwuouwuo CONuMSHm>m >ua>auo¢ c0quDCOEoHQEH

 

 

 

Aoumnv ”coflumsam>m Ucm 3mH>0d awash

moow>umm .mcmuouo> new a .02
unoEoomHm ucos>onEfl .mpflc Hmwocmcfim unmosum mo mEmumoum wouMNcAEUm oh um>auooflno mo ucosoumum

 

AouIEouu Noumov AucoEuummocv Aom>uno>NUUOnnov “mance
mhma .om mash ou mow>umm mcmnmuo> new wcfiusom
chad .H aasb .ucoEoomam .mpwg Hmwocmcfim

 

 

nonasnm aaoz

mmUH>mmm szzommmm BZNQDBm

AHIOQCN EUQAAOU NBHZTiZOU UZHm24A

 

.-_ —..--— _..—

o UGUCGSUOU mum

 

134

m3ow>ou HHC .musooo 3ofi>ou .omonQEo Loco HON mcoAumHuommo now oz» can
oucmEAOMHOQ amazes nxaamsccmnwEmm COLMNHQMDmo >Hm>wumumaooo mo>Huuwnno onu com:
po3o«>ou mus mw>wuomflno .m comma ucoEuummmo ecu no moomoHQEw mumsam>m .m

1 .mcoflmmow mcficflmuu oofl>uwmcfl uo mmosmxuo3
W maepcmuum .mmmmmao mcflxmu >9 wHAflxm.
. uflwnu o>ouQEH Cu mwmuw on» ommusoocm .m

’i: all.

.umwh uom mmmao mco ummma
um mmxmu umnEmE mmmum Loam .m

 

1 .ucoEuummoa
.Hmo> on» mcfluzo cam: we 1 on» cflnua3 mmmum on» you moocoHuoaxo
conmom.JME§0u oco unwed u< .5 1 mcflcfimuu mofi>uwmcfl mpfl>oum no nosocou .n

I .mmmaaou ozu mo mucmEuuommo Monuo :DH3
mazmcofiumeu ucaxuo3 m>Humuomooo m samu5amz .o

.pm>flmomu
mum mucflmHQEoo HOnmE oz .0

 

.ucoE
~.qumaov ocu swnufl3 owonQEm any fine? coao
haw>eumuwmooo new coflumoacsEEoo Hm2u0ncN
oofi>oum Cu mmcflumoe HoucoEuumaop monocou .m

.oHnmaem>m
who mousse: .COCOOC mm 1
Ho haxoo3fln mum mmcfluwoz .m M

3ow>mm owuoufiuu coflumsHm>m m >ua>aucd nodumnco:OHméH

 

00mm

 

a mmoH>emm new:5mmma szmnzsm

135

.>MODUMMMHumm on Oman padonm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muuoawn peosd .>omusoom mo omumwo # .Emumoum sumo
Swan m SuHB mumamsou on pasosm new mCONumHDmmu 0cm 3Ma.0u maepuooom
manomou coflumpcsom.oum>hum ocm mEmumoum ohm Hmaucmchw oum>fium Hmuoq cam
Hmcoflusuwumcu .wumum .Hmumoom Add .m HmcoHusuAumcH .mumum .Hmuocwm umumecfisv< .m
Routes _
.EmumOum
.wcHHpmop ummm smog cansu can .cmoq tam ucmuo ucmE
phenom ou cofiumufiuonusm zufl3 IOUHOMcm 3mg .cmoq new macmpmaonow ocflmuoz
Aoumpv Houucou use oco>mn mmwac: Emum .>©5um xuoz omoHHou .cmoq Doouafl as
loud Sumo New mwcflapmwo poumum wn incoNumz .ucmuo xuacsuuocao Hmcoaumospm on»
omuufifinsm on tadozm mumonuwu Had .N _ CH wumasofluumm o» mpcsw Hmuwoou ummsuwm .N
.
_ .UHm assocmcflw Cu mcfluma
Awumnv H 1mm :oMumHmamOH wumum mam Hmuwwom ucou
_ luau usonm wanmmmconocx mcflmn ocNUSHUCN
.pflm _ mEmumoum can Hmeocmcflw wum>aum amuoq vcm
. Hohocm:eu ou voumaou mcoADMHDwou _ HmcoHuouHumcH .wumum .Hmuoomm mchcuw>om
can mzmH oumum ocm amnmpom Ham comm .H _ mCOADmHDmmu tam m3mH on» 3ocx cam ommm .H
nouspv 1
. _
3wfl>wm mHuouAuu coflumsam>m _ >ufl>eu04 :oNumucoEonEH
. _
Amumcv "CONumsHm>u was 3ma>om Muzak
.mflcow wum>wwm Hmuoq cam .HMCONuSuwumcH .mumum .Hmuoomm mcflosaocw new N .02

HMAUGMCNN ucwcsum wo Emumon o>wmco£oumfioo m mumsam>o paw .ucoanme .cmam OB uw>duowflno mo ucoeoumuw

AOuIEouw "oumvv

mama sow case on
«has .H Saab

adlomas

AscoEUHmmouv Aom>u|o>auuwnnov “mecca

mwow>uwm .m:muouo> Ucm
unoEmomHm .pw< Hmwucmcwm

ocfiusom uocfluzm Hwoz

mmUH>mmm Jazzommmm Hzmnbfim

EOWQAOU >9HZY1ZOU UZHmz<A

136

 

 

 

.muconsum mo cooo onu
mo cofluoommfluom onu ou cocoon
mo ooQoHo>o© ouo mumoo uHCD

.mooa>uom .mcououo> oco .ucoEoooHa .mcwo
HowucocAm 2N Uo>uom mucoosum new mumoo was:
mnemoao>o© aw mucopsum mo soon on» umammc

 

.mcsn mumoo mnemoHo>o© ca umwmmo
Ou oHNoCCOHDMoSW co oomon
pouosocoo we zpsum @9130aaom

.omoaaoo

ccouuo Ou oano on On mooo: uwonu ocfluooE
ouo mEoumoum owo aoflococflm onu nonuoSS
ocwsuouoo ou oucoumemmo HoNUCoCNM mew>woo
Ion mucooSum mo >05»m malzoaaom o postcoo

 

.oo>aooou ouo mucaoamfioo honoE
oz .cofiuoEMOMCA HooHDMNuoum
oco .muuomou .mpuooou mnemoox
mo moonuoE UoNflcomuo Haoz

.mEoumoum two Hofiococfim ado mo muwpso

oco muuoaou Hoocco Hoc0wusuwumcH poo ououm
.Houoooh now coAuoEMOMCA Hoofiumfluoum oco
.muuomou mowmmoooum ouop .mouooou :woucfloz

 

.mucoosum mo mpoo: Hoao
ncocwm on» some zawuouoowmeuom

bUiiifiTl

oco .mcofiuoocsom ouo>flum .aoCOwusuwumcH
.ououm .Houoooz on» no mcofluoasmou poo
3oa opp cons oomon two Howococflm ouo3o
poo upwawnwmaao two HowococAm ocwfiuouoo
on mcoHuoowHQmo owo Hoflococwm Ado 3ow>om

.m

.c

 

3o«>om

owuoufiuo :oMuoSHo>m

 

 

zuw>wuo¢ noduoucoEoHQEH

 

 

moon

 

mmUH>mmm am 0mmmm BZNQDBm

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.uoo> on» ocwusc mommowo
cco wwow on» cw mCmemom new»
noucowuo coezmoum :uwS uooE on .moow>uom ucoEooowm cco cwo wowoconw
“coEuuomoa mowwomcsou suw3 xuoz .fl usono mc0wmmom sawuoucowuo coEnmoum ou xooam .o
nouoov .
.ucoEooowm
.Lmowwou on» no cco mwoonom saw: cco mcwo wowococwm usono Eozu mewENOmcw
on» no cowsconom ouo mocwuooz .m mucocsum cco muOHowcsou woozom nmwz uwmw> .m
1oo661_
.uommcouu ou cowm 0:3
ucocsum cco .mucocsum ucouuso .ucoEooowm ucoE>0meo cco mcwo
.mcwEoocw MOM :commOw: cco wowoconm mewcuoocoo omowwoo onu cco mwoonom
cowsconom ouo mmcwuooE moouo .N nmw: Eouw mucocsum mo museum SuwB uooz .N
Aouoov
.mouwoCCOwumoso ucocsum Scum
conouno mw mewuou zu0uoommwuom
.co>wooou ouo mquomeoo HonoE
vz .mcwlmouc cco mucoEucwommo .ucofiooowm cco cwo
Aouocv unocsum wow cowsco£0m mw oEwB .w wowococwm mowcuomou mucocsum £Uw3 womcsoo .w
3ow>om owuouwuo GOwuo5wo>m >uw>wuo¢ cowuoucosomeH

 

 

 

 

Aouocv AcowuoSwo>m cco 3ow>om wocwmv

.Eoumoum
ucoE>0meo unocsum onu cco mEoumoum cwo wowococwm onu Soon mo mmoco>wuoommo n .02

ocu onwwaoE ou uocuo cw .mucocsum ou moow>uom mcwwomcsou ocw>oum 09 uo>au0onflo mo ucoEououm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aouueoum "ouocv AucoEuuomocv . AoQ>u|o>wuoonnov Aoaocv
mnmw .Om ossn oow>uom .mcououo> cco onwusom uocwunm wwoz
ou vhmw .w wab .ucofiooowm .mcwc wowoconm .

mmOH>mmm Amazommmm BZflQDBm
.HIOflflv NOmAAOO NBHZ..LOO UZHMZdA

138

 

 

 

.mwcwuooE woucoEuuomoc

.moow>nom .mcououo> cco ucoE
.ooowm ucoEzomeo .mcwo wowoconm aw mucoE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hocowmw>wc nmsousu zmeOSCwucou 1Q0wo>oc usono mMOwomcsoo omowwou Euomcw .m
.co>wooou mw ucwomeoo
HomoE oz .conoquoE mw
mow .mhmw .w zoz I chmw .w .mowuwmuo>w:s cco momowwoo Honuo
.moa nwmonmEo nowsowuuom £uw3 ou wcwuuowmcouu mucocsum ou COwuoEMOMCw
.zw SOSCwucoo zoom ouo mucocsum coo mowwomcsoo cwo wowoconm ocw>oum .n
.mcuoon :wuowwsn
.mnuoon :wuowwsn cco Homomm3oc cco .uomomm3oc woonom .mcwouoo omowwoo
woonom you zwmsoscwucoo on» gmsouzu ucoEooowm unoE>0wQEo cco
“so mOwouoo wow mocwwcooc zm cwo wowoconm usono COwDoEuomcw onwowwnsm .m
.vhmw wwom wow .ousnooum
. cbwusnwuumwc How zcoou on 09 ucoEooowm cco cw< wowococwm 3o: o ouomoum .m
30w>om dwuouwuo cowuoSwo>m zuw>wuo< cowuouaofiomeH
omom

 

 

mmUH>mmm AMZ

.mmwm Bzmnaam

139

UEUIHHS HMCCwqumum NO LCQFSC—CEQ

.comuoa wwoum

 

com: ucomcwucoollmnofl co

muco sum mo ucoEooowm coo: 0:3
mu zomeo Howonm Luw3 uwmw>

Houocv

1.6.61

.co>woo

.o
Aouocc

Aouocv

3ow>om

Aoulfiouw "ouocv
seas .H wads

uOflflv

co mno>0wmfio omuow oz» mo

Aowv cou umoow no uooucoo .b

_

.zwmsoncwucou conoquoE
ouo mcuoon :wuowwsm .m
mu ouo mucwowmfiou nonoE oz .

m ocsh .uooz woomww osu mo
ro on» nouwo cco Euou Loom .

.m:0wuo:oc

HoUOw mo DCDOEo cco muococ
onOw mo HonEd: cwoucwoz .w

owuouwuo :0wuo5wo>m

 

aN

om

_

.owawo ucoEouowQ

_ ogu :uw3 mnoh umom Cu COHDoUwCDEEoo me
p mocww come nwwwnoumo on mo>wuoucomoumou
_ wowuumsccw cco mmonmon wooow LuwB boo: .v

.mcuoon :wuowwsn

:0 upon oEquwwsw cco oEwuluuom wwo umom .m

.mcuo3o uwocu o>wooou 0L3 mucocsum

mo mmopmoum onu mo mnococ woo0w zwwuoz .N

.oucoumwmwo wowuconw mo moousow

loosen

3o: £mflwnoumo ou mowucomo zuwcsEEoo cco zuumsch
.mwocwmsn onOw mo wo>wuoucowouaou Low: boo: .w

Muw>wu0< :OwuoucoEOwnEH

“:0wuo: opm cco 3ow>om wocwhv

.mucocsum How mowuwnduuommo unoE>OwQEo new wuooc :omo cco
moon50m cwo wowuconm 3o: nmwwnoumo ou hocuo :w zuuchCw cco mmonmon a .02
.mowocomo zuwCDEEou zuw3 mmw£MCOwuowou o>wuoowwo :woucon cco smwwnoumo OB "obwiooflno mo uzoEODoum

AucoEUuomocv
nlmflmMNMMWIwmcmmwuoN cco
.ucofiooowm .mcw< wowuconm

Aom>u|o>wuuonnov

ocwusom

,mmoH>mmw nmzzommmm BZEDDBw

mwmndoo >BHZD.

bU UZHmZAA

AoEocv
nonugw .0 wwoz .Hz

 

1140

.rmv .m.m mo COwuoucoEowQEw
cro omommom mow muOuowmwmow
woOOwncco oouquEou o>wuowmwooa .
c0wuowoo mg cwo wowoconm comesz . .mucocsum >cooc NON Eoumoum ucoum
Aouocvfl onu cuw3 xuo3 zwo>wuo¢ .o zuwcsuuommo ououm o :mwwnoumo ou xu03 .v
.co>woocu ouo nonwowmeoo HonoE oz .nm
_

M .Eoumoum coccomxo m

«so ouoncuooo Ou coEuwono A .mucocsum wooz ccouom
wouquEoo cuo3< woc0wmw>wa ”wo3ocou Cu mcuo3< woCmew>wQ m.omowwou on»

aouocv_ :uw3 xuo3 zwwHOUUommwuom .om mewucoEomew cw mcowmw>wc moOwuo> onu umwmm< .m

-_ ..-._—_.

.c0wuouwwwnonou
woc0wuooo> ou mcwuwHB cw
ouoowcsEEoo cco ucoEouwsvou mwsu
Aouocvl acoEomew zwwHOuoowmwuom .m

_

.
m .n0womcsoo COwuouwwwnoLou ouoquONQQo
ocu EuOqu cco COwDouwwwnonou woCOwuooo>
co mucocdum wwo new coo: wowoconw mcw

:wEuouoc mo mucoEouwSUou 3o: on» ucoEomeH .m

-l 1---.

.mouOELQOm cco
coenmoum oEwu wwsm suon ouo 0:3 mucocsum
ou ucoEowuwuco cwo wowococwm mo Eoumoum

Aouocv ..>o3uocc5 mw Eoumoum 00m .w ucouo meom wouocom 3o: ozu uoumech< .w

 

 

p p.... -— —.—..-~.——..... .- "—

 

 

 

3ow>om owuouwuu c0wuo3wo>m >uw>wuu< c0wuoucofiomeH
Aouocv ACOwuozwo>m cco 3ow>om wonmv
.oocoumwmmo wowococww mo mEoumoum nocoa woooq cco COwuoccsom ouo>wum m .02

.woCOwusuwumcH .ououm .wouocom 3o: ouoSwo>o cco ucoEowQEw .zmwwnoumo 09 uo>wu00wno mo ucoEououm

AouIEouw “ouocv Aucofiuuomomv Aomzu1o>wuoonnov AoEocv
mama .Om mean Cu moww>uom .ncowouo> cam o>wuo>ocsH u NoncosmoHo>oo wocwuzw .o Nwoz .uz
shad .H sass .osoEoooaa .owo announces

 

 

mmUH>mmm AmZZOmmmm BZmQDHm

.-omov monsooo wswzs. co oszzaq

141

 

 

-—..-.—._- n.»-

 

 

-..---v -....—-.. .-- --. -- .

 

3ow>oz

omom

.mfl

.mcwccsw
mo wo>ow acouuoo swoquoZ .w

Low wouocom com: ucomcwucoo
Xmm kn Eoumoum chuw xuoB
monsoonmmo osu omoouocH .w

owuouwuo COwuoSwo>u

 

.

.

.oEwu umuww

of» new moNOELQOM oEwu wwsm mocDHUCw nowLB

C

“Eoumoum acouo UwMoQ :w omoQHUCw nuw3 cco
oocoumwmmo wowuconm now mcwcCSM mo wo>0w

.

ucouusu onu maCwoucon cuozou xu03 OF

M

w .zuwCDEEoo onu mo mcooc och cco
mucocsum mo mcooc on» uooE uouuon ou Eouooum

lzcsum xuoz momEouumwo wouocom onu ccomxm

w
.
.

1

mm0H>mmm Ami..-ommmm BZHQDBm

zuw>wuo< :0wucucosomeH

 

142

 

souocv

 

.ocwmmoooum ouoc NOM
nowuwuowum ooowwou coma

.muuomou wouocom
HON ocwmmoooum ouoc Eoum ouoc woowumwuoum

 

 

 

comon mnmw .w unsosc zm .m cowwouoc o>owuuou ou Eoumoum o n0wo>oo .n
Whoop
.cwo wowococwm ocw>wooou mucocsum mo
.mcooc ocwmmoooum ouoc now mmoumoum zuouoommwuom mo mucoEouwonu wouocom
mowuwuowum ooowwou com: on» uooE ou mcwmmoooum ouoc nuw3 Eoumzm
comon mhmw .w whoscoh an .N mcwuouwcoe mmoumoum UwEocooo so zmwwnoumm .~
assoc.
.uefi ouo ucoEouwswou wouocom cco cocoooxo uoc mw
mucocsum mo coo: on» uonu om o>wooou mucocsum
.mcooc mcwmmoo cwo wowococwm wwo Houwcoe ou cco cowuoEu0m
noun ouoc How mowuwNOwum law cwo wowococwm owousooo uouwcoe ou Eoumzm
m.omowwoo on» com: ucom ucomoum on» ooowmou on Eouoam 3o: o mcwnmoo
Aouocv:cwucoo .vsmw .w Honouoo um .w Iona ouoc saw: ucosowmaw cco .onwcomuo .cowm .w
3ow>oz owuouwuo cowuonwo>m

 

 

zuw>wuo< COwuoucoeomeH

 

 

Aouocv.zcowuoswo>m cco 3ow>om wocwm.

(WEMHOOMQ

cw< wowococwm wouocom How mmoumoum owEocooo coo coon on couowou cwo wowococww

wwo nouwcoe cco COwuoEuowcw zcsum xuo3 omowwoo cco cwo wowococww cwoucwoe c
on Eoumzm ocwmmoooum ouoc o>wuoowmo ouoe o ucoeomew cco ouwcoouo .cowm oh

Aouneouu "ouocv

mNaH .om mean one wusosoocda .owo assocecaa

on «has .N Sass

.auomov

mwow>uom mcououo>

AucoEunomocv

Ooz

Aomhulo>wuoohnov
cowuowomom

Aofiocv
uoawwrm .o Hwoz

mm0H>mmm Amazommmm BZMQDBm

WOWAAOO NBHZ..ZOO UZHWZ‘A

uo>wuoonno mo usoEououm

.m:0wmw>wc cco mucoEuuomoc nozuo
E0um cosuoEu0wca m5|30ww0m Nozuo :ua3

 

Oc0wo moow>uom .mcououo> cco .ucoEooowm .
.cwo wowococww mo mmoco>wuuommo ou

mcwuoaon mucocsum uoEu0w ob >o>usm a:

fi30ww0u o New usacw macw>0uQ woCCOMNom

 

 

Aouocv .mhmw .Vw zoz >m .v gnuoomou cco QDIBOww0w omowwou LuwB xuoz .o
.mpmw .mw zoz >9 couuomou wucsoo m.ucocwmoum cco c0wmw>wo oLu Cu

 

.onw>uow cco mEoumONQ
onu mo mwoco>wuoowwo ox» oboSwo>o

Cu chDMIxuo3 cco cwo wowoconm :0

_
1
Aouocv. cco couowsnou ouo muwnmom .m owwoCCOwumoDU oflu uo muwsmop oxu uuomom .m
_
_
_
.msma .ma euros so oowwawus can

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

Aouocv cocmwmoc mw ouwoCCOwumoDO .N mucocsum ou ouwoCCOwumoDU o use ccom .N
.oouo mo0w>uow .mcowouo> cco .ucoEooowm
.mucocsum mo coon mo COwuoowmwuom ” .cwo wowoconw oLu :wnuw3 c0wuouomo
Mo wo>ow ou coumosvon mo A cw mEoumoum mo ucoEQowo>oc cco wsuoum
Aouscv couwo ouOE no zwwosccowEom .w ofiu mo mowuoEEsm couuwu3 Ochwuom ocw>0pm .w
3ow>om owuouqu :0wuo5wo>m I howswuu< COwuoucoEOHriu
Aouocv NEOwDoDwo>m cco 3ow>oz wozwh
.omowwoo ocu uo mucoczum how mmoco>wuuowmo onu ocwEhouoc m .oz

0» mo0w>uom .w:ououo> cco ucoEooowm .mcwo wowucocwm onu ouoswo>o OH uo>wuoonno mo ucoEououm

 

 

AOUIEOMM nouocg Aucoeuuomocv Aomzulo>wuoonnog AoEocV
mhmw .On ocsb moUw>wom .m:ououo> cco o>wuo>occH I wouCoE owo>oo nonwunm .o wwoz .wz
0» whmw .w zwnb .ucoEooowm .mcw¢ wowucocwm

 

 

mmUH>mmm amzzommmm BZMDDBm

AA.» .1 momaqoo was .2200 qumzos

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mhmw .>oE >3 ococ on 08

.uoo> owEocouo ohlmhmw onu Mom omcono
cco ucoEo>oume MOM mc0wuoccoEEooou ouomouo
.mo>wuoonno >n ucoEomocoE mo COwuoowo>o cco
.m .m>o>usm .mouwoGGOwumoSU on» no mwmon onu co .m

 

3ow>om

 

owuouwuo GOwuo9wo>m

>uw>wuo< cOwuoucoEomeH

 

 

 

A

lllwmom

 

mmUH>mmm an?

’mme Bzmnbfim

 

2145

 

Aouoc.

 

 

.mcooo >uwosEEoo mowmoow uouooum on» 0»

 

.>wuowsmou ouspwuuooo o» wwoooou mowooowm uozomooz
Aouocv mmowuooE cowwoo coouuo .m >uoooolwu9 onu mo noAEoE o no o>uom .m
.uououumwoweco

Aouocv .uoo> oou wowuoc ooo .m

 

T .uoo> on» mowuoc umoow uo

Rouscv mowuooE woomemomoum oouna .w

wowoooowm o no mmooo>wuoommo o>ouQEw
on awsmxwoz cwo Howococsm ocoooo .N

oOwuowUOmm< cwd wowoooowm oomw£Uwz
coo oOwuowoomm< cwo wowoooowm umo3cwz
on» no mmowuoos woomemomoum coouud .w

 

3ow>om # owuouwuu oOwuoswo>m

c

_
.
1
_
m
1
_ .oooouomEoo woomewomoum o>oume ou
_
_
_
_
_
.
A

>uw>wuo¢ oOwuouooEomeH

Aouocv uoOwuoswo>m coo 3ow>om woowb

.AOuouumwocho oo mo >wo>wuoomwo
oNOE EHOMHom ou uocuo ow uooEo>oume|mwom mo Eonmoum o oomusm OB

AOuIEouw "ouocv AuooEuuomocv Aom>ulo>wuoonnov
mhmdl+Qflufldddlduil mddHNHmm.nmdduuH0m Uddm wMCOmHom
seas .H sass .ocosoooaa .mowo Hmwoaocao

mmUH>mmm Amzzommmm BZNQDBm

zone .1 oomqaoo say. 2200 oszzoq

m .02
uo>wuoonno uo uooEououm

AoEoov
Hoowunm .0 wwoz .uz

146

E. FORM DEVISED FOR FINANCIAL AIDS' DIRECTOR: ALLOCATION
OF TOTAL ANNUAL TIME SPENT 0N FINANCIAL AIDS

 

 

ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ANNUAL TIME SPENT 0N FINANCIAL AIDS

NAME '
TITLE OF POSITION

DireCtions: On this form, the objectives for your position are

s e as they appear on current MBO documents. For each one,
please estimate the percentage of annual time you allocate to
completion of the objective. Estimate onl the time allocated
to FINANCIAL AIDS. If your job includes o¥her responsibilities,
percentages will not total 100%.

OBJECTIVE l - To administer programs of Student Financial
Aids, Employment Placement, and Veterans' Services.

OBJECTIVE 2 - To plan, implement, and evaluate a compre-
hensive program of student financial aid including Fed-
eral, State, Institutional, and Local Private Funds.

OBJECTIVE 3 -‘To provide counseling services to students,
in order to maximize the effectiveness of both the fi-
nancial aid programs and the student employment program.

OBJECTIVE 4 - To establish and maintain effective rela-
tionships with community agencies, business and industry,
in order to establish new financial aid sources and open
doors for employment opportunities for students.

OBJECTIVE 5 - To establish, implement, and evaluate new
Federal, State, Institutional, Private Foundation and
Local Donor Programs of financial assistance.

OBJECTIVE 6 - To plan, organize, and implement a more
effective data processing system to maintain financial
aid and college work study information and monitor all
financial aid related to need and academic progress for
Federal Financial Aid Programs.

OBJECTIVE 7 - To establish a career planning and place-
ment center, contingent upon employment of an additional
full-time professional staff person.

OBJECTIVE 8 - To evaluate the financial aids, placement,
and veterans' services to determine the effectiveness for
students at the college.

OBJECTIVE 9 - To pursue a program of self-improvement in
order to perform more effectively as an administrator.

147

148

F. RATING SCALE AND EVALUATION FORM DEVISED FOR SUPERVISOR
EVALUATION OF FINANCIAL AIDS DIRECTOR

 

149

SUPERVISOR EVALUATION OF FINANCIAL AIDS DIRECTOR

On the following form, you are asked to evaluate the perfor-
mance of a financial aids administrator in the achievement
of his objectives as they are listed on Lansing Community
College Management-by-Objectives documents for the 1974-75
academic year.

Each major objective for the administrator is listed, fol-
lowed by the evaluation criteria established for activities
performed to achieve that objective.

The following scale should be utilized for evaluation. Mark
directly on these forms.

A. Procedure or service not accomplished
B. Task is partially implemented or needs improvement

C. Satisfactory performance as evidenced by appropriate
documentation or absence of any major complaint

D. Task is well done

E. No evidence to judge performance

150

Name of administrator to be evaluated

 

OBJECTIVE: TO ADMINISTER PROGRAMS OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AIDS
EMPLOYMENT PLACEMENT AND VETERANS' SERVICES

CRITERIA RATING
1. MBO documents are completed on schedule.
2. MBO documents accurately and completely represent

the responsibilities of the financial aids depart-

ment.

3. Budget materials are completed on time.

4. EXpenditures for the financial aids department
are written within budget guidelines.

5. Minutes of departmental meetings are submitted.

6. Employee evaluations are completed and submitted
by established deadlines.

7. In-service training is planned and implemented
annually. ,

8. Working relationships within the department of
financial aids are cooperative and beneficial.

9. COOperative working relationships are maintained
with other departments of the College.

OBJECTIVE: TO PLAN, IMPLEMENT, AND EVALUATE A COMPREHENSIVE
PROGRAM OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID INCLUDING FEDER-
AL, STATE, INSTITUTIONAL, AND LOCAL PRIVATE FUNDS.

CRITERIA RATING

10. Requests for federal funds are submitted by stated
federal guidelines for each program.

11. Federal reports are completed, as indicated by sat-
isfactory audit reports.

12. State reports are completed, as indicated by sat-
isfactory audit reports.

13. Institutional and Private reports are completed,
as indicated by satisfactory audit reports.

14. Financial aid applications are reviewed to deter-
mine eligibility and awards are made to students.

15. FolloWbup study of students receiving aid is done.

 

16.
17.

151
Unit costs for the department are developed.

Record-keeping, reports, and statistical informa-
tion is maintained for all areas of financial aid.

OBJECTIVE: TO PROVIDE COUNSELING SERVICES TO STUDENTS, IN

ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BOTH THE
FINANCIAL AID PROGRAMS AND THE STUDENT EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMS.

CRITERIA RATING

18. Counseling service is provided for drop-ins and
scheduled student appointments.

19. Group meetings are held for high school and cur-
rent college students who indicate interest in fi-
nancial aid.

20. Financial aids information is provided at fresh-
man orientation sessions.

21. Financial aids information is provided to high
school counselors.

22. A financial aids brochure is prepared by Fall,
1974.

23. Financial aids information for the college cata-
log and newspaper is available as evidenced by
publication.

24. Financial aids information is displayed on college
bulletin boards.

25. Financial aids developments are described at divis-

ional meetings.

OBJECTIVE: TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS

WITH COMMUNITY AGENCIES, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY IN
ORDER TO ESTABLISH NEW FINANCIAL AID SOURCES AND
OPEN DOORS FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS.

CRITERIA RATING

26.

270

28.

New sources of financial aids are solicited from
local business and community agencies.

Current sources of financial aid from local busi-
ness and community agencies are maintained.

Local donors receive a progress assessment of the
students they support at the end of each term and
at the end of the fiscal year.

152

OBJECTIVE: TO ESTABLISH, IMPLEMENT, AND EVALUATE NEW FEDERAL,
STATE, INSTITUTIONAL, PRIVATE FOUNDATION, AND
LOCAL DONOR PROGRAMS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

CRITERIA RATING

29. New Federal Basic Grant Program is implemented
for full time freshmen and sophomores.

30. Vocational Rehabilitation receives determination
of financial need for vocational rehabilitation
students according to new requirements.

31. College Divisional Awards are renewed for second
year students.

32. State opportunity grant program is established
for needy students.

33. Off-campus Work Study Program is expanded by 25%
in 1974-75.

34. Maintain current level of funding for the basic
grant program which included full time SOphomores
for the first time in 1974-75.

OBJECTIVE: TO PLAN, ORGANIZE, AND IMPLEMENT A MORE EFFECTIVE
DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN FINANCIAL AID
AND COLLEGE WORK STUDY INFORMATION AND MONITOR ALL
FINANCIAL AID RELATED TO NEED AND ACADEMIC PROGRESS
FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID PROGRAMS.

CRITERIA RATING

35. A new data processing system monitors need of stu-
dents on financial aid so that need is not ex-
ceeded and Federal requirements are met.

36. New data processing system monitors academic pro-
gress of students on financial aid so that Federal
requirements are met.

37. A program to retrieve statistical data from Data
Processing for Federal Reports is ready by August,

1975.

OBJECTIVE: TO EVALUATE THE FINANCIAL AIDS, PLACEMENT AND
VETERANS' SERVICES TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS
FOR STUDENTS AT THE COLLEGE.

CRITERIA RATING
38. Summaries of the status and development of finan-

cial aids programs are presented to the Dean as
requested.

153

39. Questionnaires are administered to students re-
garding effectiveness of services.

40. Questionnaire results are reported to the Divis-
ion and President's Council by May 1975.

41. Work with other College research personnel to im-
plement a follow-up survey to former students re-
garding financial aids services.

42. Recommendations for improvement and change are
prepared by May 1975.

OBJECTIVE: TO PURSUE A PROGRAM OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT IN ORDER

TO PERFORM MORE EFFECTIVELY AS AN ADMINISTRATOR.

CRITERIA RATING

43. Attend at least three professional meetings during
the 1974-75 academic year.

44. Attend one financial aids workshop during the
1974-75 academic year.

45. Attend meetings of the Tri-County Manpower Plan-

ning Council regularly.

G.

154

COVER LETTER, RATING SCALE, AND EVALUATION FORM DEVISED
FOR STUDENT RECIPIENTS OF FINANCIAL AID

.Cansing Community College

I ' ' 419 N. CAPIIOI. AVE., lANSING. mcmom 4:914

 

 

Serving "I. Moor! . May 30 p 19 75

0! Michigan

Dear Student:

Enclosed is sequestionnaire concerning the financial
aid department at Lansing Community~College. we are
attempting to evaluate the quality of services in order
to determine how we might be more helpful to studentS'
needs. You are receiving the questionnaire because our
records indicate that you have been awarded some type
of financial aid during the current academic year.

A large reSponse to this survey will contribute to

the most accurate and realistic results possible.

Even if you are not presently receiving financial aid,
will you take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire.
and then return it in the envelope provided as soon as
possible? The questionnaire results will be anonymous;

do not include your name. ' -

Thank you for taking time to help.
Sincerely,

,ckKnggfieL/&fi;nzfaézoux

Martha Smydra
.Administrative Assistant to-the Dean-of Students

Neil Shriner
.Director of Financial Aids .

155

156
RATING SCALE FOR FINANCIAL AIDS QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: Mark only one response to each statement.
Use any kind of pen or pencil.
Do not indicate your name on this questionnaire.
For each of the following statements, respond according to
the following scale.
. Service not evident or totally unsatisfactory.
. Service partly done or needs improvement.
. Service is satisfactory -- no complaint.

A
B
C
D. Service is well done.
E Outstanding effort is made.
F

. No experience -- no basis to answer.

1...!

1.

10.
11.

13.
14 .

16.

17.
18.

20.

 

FMNCIAL AID WIQMIRE

Please check each type of financial aid you receive and/or have received
during the 1974-75 academic year. A. Scholarship
, B. loan
C. Grant

D. Diploynent
Counseling is available concerning availability and use of financial aid.
Appointments with financial aid staff can be made within 3—5 days of request.

Financial aid staff is willing to answer questions or telephone or drop-in
basis.

Financial aid staff is courteous and interested in your cmcern.
Applicatim procedures for financial aid is clearly explained.
Information about types of financial aid seens accurate and tp-to-date.

Financial aid informatim is displayed on bulletin boards and in college

Help is available in catpleting financial aid applications and other
paperwork.

Financial aid chedcs are available and distributed on tine.
Financial aid checks are accurately matched to your need.

‘Ihe procedure for adjusting the anomt of financial aid (more or less) is
clearly explained.

Financial aid is available in time to cover ny expenses.
Distributim of checks is conducted with courtesy.

Your obligation to repay the financial aid and/or dermtrate acadanic
progress is clearly stated.

1b the best of your knowledge . college record keeping is tp—to-date and
accurate.

The financial aid you receive is enough to allow you to attend college.

You have had an opportunity to cament a: the effectiveness of the financial
aids service.

The time betsveen application for aid and receiving your aid seems reasonable
to you.

that suggestions do you have to improve financial aids services at [31131119
Omnmity College? (Continue on other side if necessary)

157

 

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Bernard J. "Organizational Leadership and Manage-
ment by Objectives with Emphasis on Student Affairs
Operations." The MSU Orient 6 (Fall 1971): 17-27.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. f7
"Standards for Student Personnel Services and Eval- .
uative Criteria." In Third Yearbook. The Association, :
1950. -

Arbuckle, Dugald S. Student Personnel Services in Hi her
Education. New York: McGrawbHIII BooE Company, I953.
Balderston, Frederick E. "Thinking About the Outputs of 5}
Higher Education." In The Outputs of Hi her Education: or
d EvaluaI:

Their Identification Measurement an .on,

pp. II-I6. Edifed By Ben Lawrence, George WeatHErsby,
and Virginia W. Patterson. Boulder, Col.: Western In-
terstate Commission for Higher Education, July 1970.

Berchin, Arthur. Toward Increased Efficiency in Community
Junior Colle e Courses: x lorator tu . Los
AngIes: League for Innovafion in {He Community College,

1972. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service
ED 063 915, 1972.

 

 

Blaesser, Willard W. "The Organization and Administration of
Student Personnel Programs in College." Review of Edu-
cational Research, vol. 24, no. 2. Washingfon, D.C.:
National Education Association of the United States,
April 1954.

Bottomley, J. A. Cost Effectiveness in Hi her Education.
England: Bradford UniversiTy, JuIy ISVI. BeIHesda,
Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 054 749,
1971.

Bower, Louise, comp. "Bibliography No. 1 - Management by
Objectives, February 1973." Evanston, 111.: North-
western University, The Management Library, 1973.

"Supplement to Bibliography No. 1, November 1974,"
EVanston, 111.: Northwestern University, The Management
Library, 1974.

Braaksma, Augie. "RHPO and MBO: Partners in Accountatility."
Independent study, Michigan State University, East

158

159
Lansing, Michigan, August 1972. (Typewritten.)

Braun, Thomas G., and Jordan, Jack B. "Model Provides a
Method for Putting Costs in Their Place." Colle e and
University Business 55 (December 1973): 20-22, 34.

Browder, Lesley H., Jr. An Administrator's Handbook on Edu-
cational Accountabilit . ’Arlington, Va.: American
Association of ScHooI Administrators, 1973.

‘ . EmergingpPatterns of Administrative Accountabil-
ify. BerEeIey: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1971.

Brown, David G. "A Scheme for Measuring the Output of Higher
Education." In The Outputs of Higher Education: Their
Identification, Measurement, and Evaluation, pp. 27438.
Edited by Ben Lawrence, George Weatheery, and Virginia
W. Patterson. Boulder, Col.: Western Interstate Com-
mission for Higher Education, July 1970.

Burkhalter, David A., and Coffman, Jerry B. "Charlotte/
Management by Objectives." Public Management 56
(June 1974): 15-16.

Byers, Maureen. Information Exchange Procedurgs Outcopgg
Study Procedures Technical Report 66. Boulder, Col.:
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
at Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
February 1975.

Carlson, Daryl E. The Production and Cost Behavior of Higher
Education Institutions. Ford Foundation Program for
Research in University Administration. Berkeley: Cali-
fornia University, December 1972.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The More Effective
Use of Resources: An Im erative for H1 her Education.
New York: McCraw-HIII BooE Company, June I972.

Casse, Robert M., Jr.; Gillis, Arthur L.; and Mullen, John.
"A Student Services Data Information System: An Approach
to Process Accountability." NASPA Management Informa-
tion Newsletter. February 1974, pp. 3-8.

Cavanaugh, Alfred D. "A Preliminary Evaluation of Cost
Studies in Higher Education." Berkeley: California
University, Office of Institutional Research, October
1969.

Chickering, Arthur W. et a1. Research and Action. Third
Annual Progress Report, Project on Student Development
at Selected Small Colleges, March 1968.

Chronister, Jay L. "Implementing Management by Objectives."
Communitprolle e Review 2 (Spring 1974): 61-9.

 

160

Collins, Charles C. Junior College Student Personnel Pro-
grams: What They Are andIWhat They ShouldIBe. Was -
ington, D.C.: American—Association of Junior Colleges,
1967.

Collins, Robert W. "Management by Objectives: Advantages,
Problems, Implications for Community Colleges." Bethes-
da, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, Ed 057 792,
1971.

Danforth Foundation. "A Report: College Goals and Governance."
Danforth News and Notes, November 1969.

Dannemiller, Kathleen. Untitled booklet "describing (the)
first year and a half of the implementation of MBO in
Student Services." Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
4 January 1973.

Deegan, William L.; Gripp, Thomas; Johnson, Milo P.; and
McIntyre, Charles. Community College Management by
Ob ectives: Process, Progress, Problems. Sacramento:
Cali ornia School BoarHS’Association,—24 January 1974.

Dobbin, John E., and Turnbull, William W. "The Need for New
Appraisal Techniques in Junior Colleges." In Junior
College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and De-
veloDment: A Report to the Carnegie COrporation, Part V,
pp. 1-27. Edited by Max R. Raines, Washington, D.C.:
American Association of Junior Colleges, November 1965.

Dobbins, C. G., and Lee, C. B. T. Whose Goals for American
Hi her Education? Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Educafion, I968.

Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1976.

"Measuring the Benefits of Student Personnel Work."
Journal of Higher Education 44 (January 1973): 15-26.

Dressel, Paul L. and Associates. Institutional Research in
the Universit : A Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, Inc., PuBIisHers, I972.

Drucker, Peter. The Practice of Management. New York: Har-
per and Row, 1954.

Educational Goals and Ob'ectives. California School Board
Association, SeptemBer 1969. Quoted by Alfons P. Van
Wijk and Barbara J. Young, "Objectives, Program Struc-
ture and Evaluation in Higher Education: An Introduc-
tion," p. 6. Toronto: Institute for Policy Analysis,

University of Toronto, n.d.

EncyCIOpedia Of Educational Research, 1960 ed. s.v. "Finance -

 

 

161

College and Universities," by Doi, James I., and Rus-
sell, John Dale. New York: The MacMillan Company,

1960. pp. 544-53.

Encyglopedia of Educational Research, 1960 ed. s.v. "Student
Personnel Work - College and University," by Crookston,
Burns B., and Blaesser, Willard W. New York: The Mac-
Millan Company, 1960. pp. 1415-27.

Enthoven, Alain C. "Measures of the Outputs of Higher Edu-
cation: Some Practical Suggestions for Their Develop-
ment and Use." In The Outputs of Higher Education:
Their IdentificationLAMeasurement, and Evaluation, pp.
51-58. Edited by Ben Lawrence, GeorgeIWeathersby, and
Virginia W. Patterson. Boulder, Col.: Western Inter-
state Commission for Higher.Education, July 1970.

"Financial Aid: Questions and Answers." Lansing Community
College Brochure. Lansing, Michigna, 1975.

Fisk, Donald M. "Issues in Local Government Productivity
Management." Public Management 56 (June 1974): 6-8.

Fordyce, Joseph W. "Criteria for Evaluation of Student Per-
sonnel Programs in Public Junior Colleges." In Confer-
ence to Plan Research on Junior Colle e Student Person-
nel Pro rams, Max R. Raines, Conference Coordinator.
PETE—n , Mi.: Flint Community Junior College, 1964.

 

. "Evaluation of Student Personnel Services in Com-
munity Colleges." In Student Develo ment Pro rams in
phe Communitprunior CoIIege, pp. 92-ICI. Edited By
Terry O'Banion andIAlice Thurston. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. .

Fordyce, Joseph W.; Shepard, Eugene L.- and Collins, Char-
les C. "A Taxonomy of Junior College Student Personnel
Services." In Junior College Student Personnel Pro-
grams: Appraisal and Develo ment: A Re ort to the Car-
negie Corporation, Part III, pp. 1-21. Edited by Max
R. Raines. ashington, D.C.: American Association of

Junior Colleges, November 1965.

Froehlich, Clifford R. Evaluatin Guidance Procedures: A
Review of the LiteraIure. NasfiingIon, D.C.: U.S. Office
of Education, 1949.

-Garner, William T. "Inputs and Outputs in the Educational
Process." Speech given at the 56th Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New
York, 4 February 1971. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, ED 075 948, 1971.

Gross, E. W., and Grambsch, P. V. University Goals and Aca-

 

 

162

demic Power. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
EducaIion, 1968.

Harpel, Richard L. "Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation in
Student Affairs Programs: A Manual for Administrators."
Boulder: University of Colorado, 1976. (Typewritten.)

Harshman, Carl Leonard. "An Analytical Model for Institu-
tional Goal DevelOpment: A Survey of Selected Student
Personnel Workers in Ohio Higher Education." Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972.

Hartley, Harry J. "PPBS: A Systems Approach to Educational
Accountability." Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Department
of Education, 13 April 1972. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Doc-
ument Reproduction Service, ED 064 802, 1972.

Hartnett, Rodney T. Accountabilit in Hi her Education
A Consideration of Some of the ProElems of Assessipg
Colle e Im acts. Princeton: Co lege ntrance xami-
naIion oari, 971.

 

Harvey, James. "Administration by Objectives in Student Per-
sonnel Programs." Journal of College Student Personnel
13 (July 1972): 293-6.

Hoyt, Donald P. "Research Needs in Junior College Student
Personnel Work." In Junior Colle e Student Personnel
Programs: Appraisal and Develo ment: A Re ort to tHe

Carne ie Cor oration. Part V, pp. 1-22. Edited by
Max R. Raines. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Junior Colleges, November 1965.

Institutional Goals Inventory. Institutional Research Pro-
gram or Higher uca ion. Princeton: Educational
Testing Service, 1971.

.Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and De-
velo ment: Re ort to the Carne ie or ora ion. ax

-R. Raines, Project Coordinator. Washington, D.C.:

American Association of Junior Colleges, November 1965.

 

Kamm, Robert B. "How Effective Are Our Student Personnel
Programs?" Personnel and Guidance Journal 33 (1955):

. "An Inventory of Student Reaction to Student Per-
sonnel Services." Educational and Psychological Meas-

urement 10 (1950): 537F44.

Kennedy, John D. "Planning for Accountability Via Manage-
ment by Objectives." Journal of Secondary Education
45 (December 1970): 348454.

Klitzke, Louis L. "Needed Research in Junior College Student

 

163

Personnel Services." Junior College Journal 30 (April
1960): 452-9.

Kuhl, Edward. "Do We Make A Difference? - New Directions in
Evaluation." Paper presented at American Personnel
and Guidance Association Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada,
March 1969. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 031 731, 1969.

Kuper, George H. "Productivity Improvement: The Route to
More Effective Public Management." Public Management
56 (June 1974): 12-14.

Lahti, Robert E. "15 Ways to Increase Staff Productivity." 5 A
College and University Business 54 (June 1973): 37. i i

. "Implementing the System Means Learning to Manage .
Your Objectives." College and University Business 52 3
(February 1972): 43.

. Innovative College Management. San Francisco: '
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1973. :

 

. "Management by Objectives." Colle e and Univer-
sity Business 51 (July 1971): 31-3..

Lawrence, Ben. "Recent Developments and Future Directions
of Research on Planning and Management Systems in
Higher Education." Paper presented to the Statewide
Conference on Planning and Management Systems for Post-
Secondary Education, East Lansing, Michigan, 29 Janu-
ary 1973. (Mimeographed.)

Lawrence, Ben; Weathersby, George; and Patterson, Virginia W.,
eds. Out uts of Hi her Education: Their Identification,
MEasurementi_gnd Evaluation. BouIder, CoI.: Western
Interstate Commission For Higher Education, July 1970.

Lessinger, Leon. "A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y." In Accoun-
tabilit in the Communit Colle e, pp. 11-28. Proceed-
ings of the Second AHHual International Summer Insti-
tute 19-21 August 1971. Edited by George M. Delgrosso.
Ontario: Lambton College, 1971.

Lewis, Charles L. "College Student Personnel: A Current
Estimate." Journal of College Student Personnel 14
(January 1973): 5-9.

Lloyd-Jones, Esther, and Smith, Margaret Ruth. "Higher Edu-
cation Programs." Review of Educational Research,
vol. 33, no. 2. WasHIngton, D.C.: NaIionaI Education
Association of the United States, April 1963.

Manning, Charles W., and Huff, Robert A. A Prospectus on the
NCHEMS Information Exchange Procedures Implementation

Mark,

164

Project 1974-75. Boulder, Col.: National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems at Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, September

1974.

 

Jerome A. "Concepts and Measures of Productivity."

In The Meaning and Measurement of Productivity, pp.
7-15. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
September 1971.

Martorana, S. V. "Accountability at the State and Provin-

cial Level." In Accountability in the Community Col-
lege, pp. 41-55. Proceedings of the Second Annual
International Summer Institute 19-21 August 1971.
Edited by George M. Delgrosso. Ontario: Lambton Col-
lege, 1971.

Matson, Jane E. "A PerSpective on Student Personnel Ser-

vices." Junior College Journal 42 (March 1972): 48-52.

Matthews, James Edward. An Input-Output Study of Selected

Community Junior Colleges. Gaine sville: University of
Florida, Institute of Higher Education, October 1971.
Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED
055 581, 1971.

Micek, Sidney S., and Arney, William Ray. The Higher Edu-

cation Outcome Measures Identification Study, A De—
scriptive‘SUmmary.‘IBoulder, Col.: National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems at Western Inter~
state Commission for Higher Education. November 1974.

Micek, Sidney S., and Arney, William Ray. Outcome-Oriented

Planning in Higher Education: An Approach or an Impos-
sLbility? Boulder, Col.: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems at Western Interstate Com-
mission for Higher Education, June 1973.

Nficek, Sidney S.; Service, Allan L.; and Lee, Yong S. Out-

come Measures and Procedures Manual Field ReviewIEdi-
tion Technical Report No. 70. Boulder, Col.: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems at Wes-
tern Interstate Commission for Higher Education, May
1975.

Micek, Sidney S., and Wallhaus, Robert A. An Introduction

to the Identification and Uses of Higher Education Out-
come Information TechnicaI Report No. 40. Boulder,
Col.: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems at Western Interstate Commission for Higher Ed-
ucation, March 1973.

Monroe, Charles R. Profile of the Community College. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1972.

 

165

Mortimer, Kenneth P. Accountabilit in Hi her Education.
ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. I. WasH—
ington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa-
tion, 1972.

Mowbray, George, and Levine, Jack B. "The DevelOpment and
Implementation of Campus: A Computer-Based Planning
and Budgeting System for Universities and Colleges."

Reprinted from Educational Technolo . Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Educational TechnoIogy Magazine, 1971.
The National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions
of Higher Learning. Financial Repprts for Colle es
and Universities. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, I935. Cited by Alfred D. Cavanaugh, A Prelim-
inary Evaluation of Cost Studies in Higher Education,

p. ii. Berkeley: California University, Office of In-
stitutional Research, October 1969.

Newman, A. D., and Rowbottom, R. W. Organizational Analysis.
Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press,
1968. Cited by Lesley H. Browder, Jr., An Administra-
tor's Handbook on Educational Accountabilit , p. 6.
Arlington, Va.: American Association of 805001 Adminis-
trators, 1973.

Odiorne, George S. Management by Objectives: A System of
Man erial Lea ers i . New or : itman u is ing
Company, 1965.

Paulson, Donald L. "An Accountability Audit of Two Univer-
sity Student Personnel Services, Student Activities
and Counseling." Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Iowa, 1972.

Peterson, Richard E. College Goals_and the Challen e of
Effectiveness. Princeton, N.J.: EducatIOnaI* es ing
Service, Institutional Research Program for Higher
Education, 1971.

Rackham, Eric N. "The Need for Adequate Criteria When Eval-
uating College Student Personnel Programs." Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement 1 (1951): 691-99.

Robinson, Donald W., and Brown, Dirck W. "A Report on Stu-
dent and Student Personnel Research Activities." The
Personnel and Guidance Journal 40 (December 1961):

58- .

Roueche, John E.; Baker, George A., III; and Brownell, Rich-
ard L. Accountability and The Community College Dir-
ections for the 70‘s. washington, D.C.: American
Aesociation of Community and Junior Colleges, 1972.

W‘-

-\K “‘3’”. m. ’I’

 

166

Schoderbeck, Peter P. "Management by Objectives Seminar,
Gull Lake Conference Center, December, 1972." Iowa
City: University of Iowa, 1971.

Schultz, Theodore W. "Education and Productivity." Paper
prepared for National Commission on Productivity.
Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED
071 152, June 1971.

Sieber, S. D. et al. A Taxonom of Hi her Education. New
York: Bureau of AppIied Social Research, Columbia Uni-

versity, March 1968.

Sims, Howard D. A Master Plan for Unit Cost Studies Among f .
Community Junior 0 .eges. Ta assee, a.: ori a a 3
State University, Center for State and Regional Lead- . M
ership, August 1972. '

Stein, Herbert. "The Meaning of Productivity." In The Mean-
ing_and Measurement of Productivit , pp. 1-6. U.S. De- .
partment of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wash- 5
ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, September 1971. E

 

Stumph, Wayne. "A Cost-Finding Primer for Post Secondary
Schools." Bellville, 111., February 1972. Quoted in
A Master Plan for Unit Cost Studies Amonngommunity
Junior Colleges, p. 2. Talahassee, F1a.: Florida State
University, Center.for State and Regional Leadership,
August 1972. _

Toombs, William. Productivity: Burden of Success. ERIC/
Higher Education Research—Report’No.52. lWEshington,
D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1973.

Topping, James R. Cost Anal sis Manual Field Review Edition
Technical Re ort No. 4%. Boulder, 001.: National Cen-
ter for Higher Education Management Systems at Western

Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1974.

 

"Unit Cost Analysis Tells Where YOur Money Goes -
and Why." Colle e and Universit Business 53 (June
1972): 46-5 .

Topping, James R., and Miyataki, Glenn K. Pro ram Measures
Technical Report No. 3:. Boulder, Col.: National Cen-
ter or Higher ucation Management Systems at Western

Interstate Commission for Higher Education, February
1973.

Travers, Robert M. W. "A Critical Review of Techniques for
Evaluating Guidance." Educational and Ps cholo ical
Measurement 9 (Summer 19495. Cited By Dugald S. K?-
EucEIe, Student Personnel Services in Hi her Education,
pp. 12-13. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1955.

167

Uhl, Norman P. Identifying Institutional Goals Emer 1
Convergence of Opinion Through the Delphi Technique.

Dur am, N.C.: National Laboratory for Higher Education,
1971.

U.S. Department of Justice. Law Enforcement Assistance Admin-
istration. Report of the Advisory Group on Productiv-
ity in Law Enforcement on Opportunities f3} Improving
Productivity in Police Services. Washington, D.C.:
National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 1973.

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The

Meanin and Measurement of Productivit , by Jerome—KT
Mark and Herbert Stein. BdIIetin VIZ, prepared for the r
National Commission on Productivity. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, September 1971.

Vaizey, John. "The Outputs of Higher Education: Their Prox-
ies, Measurement, and Evaluation." In The Outputs of
Hi her Education: Their Identification Measurement,
and Evaluation, pp. 19-23. Edited By Ben Lawrence,
George—Weathersby, and Virginia W. Patterson. Boulder,

Col.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
July 1970.

 

Van Wijk, Alfons, and Young, Barbara J. "Objectives, Program
Structure and Evaluation in Higher Education: An Intro-
duction." Toronto: Institute for Policy Analysis, Uni-
versity of Toronto, n.d.

vande Guchte, Peter. "A Study of Relationships Between the
Use of Management-by-Objectives and Perceived Effective-
ness in Selected Community Junior College Student Per-
sonnel Units." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan
University, 1973.

Wattenbarger, James L., and Nickens, John M. The IRC Model
for Input-Output Analysis of Student Personnel Services.
Gainesville: University 0 Flori a, Flori a Community
Junior College Inter-Institutional Research Council,
1973.

Weslowski, Zdzislaw P. "An Accountability Technique in Higher
Education: The Role of Planning Programming, Budgeting
and Evaluation Systems (PPBS)." Winter Haven, F1a.:
Polk Community College, 1974. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Doc-
ument Reproduction Service, ED 086 275, 1974.

Wilson, Robert W., and Finz, Samuel A. "Implementation of
Productivity Analysis in the County." Public Manage-
ment 56 (June 1974): 12-14.

WOrthen, Blaine R., and Sanders, James R. Educational Eval-
uation: Theor and Practice. Worthington, Ohio: Char-
les A. Jones ublishing Company, 1973.

168

Wortman, Wilferd. "Productivity and Professors." Colle e
and University Business 55 (December 1973): 23-21.

Wrenn, C. Gilbert, and Kamm, Robert B. "A Procedure for
Evaluating a Student Personnel Program." School and
Society 67 (1948): 266-69.

Yoder, Marlen, and Beals, Lester. "Student Personnel Ser-
vices in the West." Junior College Journal 37 (Octo-
ber 1966): 38-41.

Young, Raymond. "A Review of Related Literature and Its Imp
plications for Research in Junior College Student Per-
sonnel Programs." In Conference to Plan Research on
Junior College Student PersonneI Programs, Max R. Raines,
Conference Coordinator. Flint, Mi.: Flint Community
Junior College, 1964.

Young, Stephen. "Accountability and Education in the 70's:
An Overview." Paper presented at the 57th Annual
Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San
Francisco, 27-50 December 1971.

Zaharchuk, T. "Management Techniques and Accountability in
Education." In Accountability in the Communitprollege,
pp. 56-64. Proceedings oftthe Second Annual Interna-
tional Summer Institute 19-21 August 1971. Edited by
George Mn Delgrosso. Ontario: Lambton College, 1971.

Zatechka, Douglas S. "An Exploratory Study of Michxgan State
University Residence Hall Staff Attitudes and Percep-
tions Concerning the Implementation of a Management by
Objectives System." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1974.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
\lHl"INN”"NilWWINHI‘IWIWIIHININHHH
31293010106205