THEs'S r ”H'- -‘ ”‘45: * LIBRAIQ I D’iic}»§:_{gn 7‘ at: - - L.-11‘JCISH_‘Y ‘ ' I._‘._.:‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF SELECTED INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS IN ELEVEN MIDNESTERN STATES presented by Linda Marie Bevilacqua of the requirements for has been accepted towards fulfillment I I I I I Ph.D. degree in Education CI” 5‘" ,, \2 ,/'/ -_ ' ~ Major professor Date October 3, 1980 0-7639 . . “I. ‘x 5 ‘ 3‘3 Is 111%"; w "I” "/1 ' e ‘ h 1 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ 90" W per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to move charge from circulation records A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF SELECTED INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS IN ELEVEN MIDNESTERN STATES By Linda Marie Bevilacqua 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 1980 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF SELECTED INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS IN ELEVEN MIDNESTERN STATES By Linda Marie Bevilacqua A review of the literature and research of the politics of higher education revealed a dearth of information regarding the relationship of the independent sector of higher education to state governments. 0n the other hand, numerous pieces of literature pertained to the precarious present status and uncertain future of the sector, its need for and dependence upon state financial aid to students, and the strengthening role of state government in the future. The purposes of the study were: l. To describe the relationship of selected independent colleges/ universities to state governments in Region I of the National Associa- tion of Independent Colleges and Universities: key participants, the factors which impinged upon the relationship, forms of communication, and the methods and tactics used by the colleges/universities to relate to elected state government officials. 2. To identify the effectiveness of a select group of methods and tactics in influencing the voting patterns of legislators. Linda Marie Bevilacqua Further conceptualizing the purposes and to provide a basic frame- work for the study, eight research questions and lO null hypotheses were developed. To gather quantitative data and qualitative informa- tion, the investigator used a survey questionnaire and structured interview. The study population consisted of all independent nonprofit or church-affiliated, nonproprietary, accredited colleges/universities in Region I of NAICU, with enrollments of at least 200 students, granting, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree (2l2). Region I consists of the following states: Illinois, Indiana. Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The survey questionnaire was deveIOped by the investigator from information gathered from a review of literature and research, and from her experience as an intern with the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan. 0f the 2l2 institutions, l49 (70%) returned questionnaires used in the analysis of data. Questions for the interviews with l7 (77%) Michigan presidents were developed from analyses of 104 returned questionnaires. Major findings led to several conclusions. among which were: I. There are common factors, internal and external to an insti- tution. which clearly have an effect on the relationship of the inde- pendent sector and individual independent colleges/universities in Region I to state governments. However, the significant factor in both situations was the institution's membership in and the effec- tiveness of a state association of independent colleges/universities. The association's prominence surfaced in major findings to several Linda Marie Bevilacqua questionnaire items. Findings from interviews with Michigan presi- dents corroborated the necessity of a united approach before state legislatures. 2. It appears that the political role (at the state level) for presidents of independent institutions in Region I is one which is shaped and directed by the sector's need for a united approach. One crucial function for the independent college/university president is to become actively involved in the state association (if one exists). Another component of the president's political role is to develOp and maintain personal relationships with state legislators from their institutions' districts. Neither proximity to the state Capitol nor high visibility in legislative halls is necessary for effective rela- tionships. 3. Questionnaire responses and interviewee comments to the per- ceived effectiveness of tactics used to influence voting patterns revealed distinctions between effective and ineffective tactics. 4. The reported minimal use of support groups (trustees, adminis— trators, faculty) and the very infrequent use of alumni and students are somewhat contradictory to suggestions found in the literature for enhancing political visibility and clout of colleges/universities. 5. Although statistically significant relationships were found between institutional state location and respondents' perceptions of the importance of selected factors in individual institutional-state relationships, no pattern of state groupings emerged. ©C0pyright by LINDA MARIE BEVILACQUA 1980 Dedicated to my parents, Nora and Michael Bevilacqua ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The successful completion of this doctoral dissertation and program of studies could not have been accomplished without the con- tinuous support, encouragement, and expertise of many people. Although the appreciation, respect, and admiration I have for them cannot ade- quately be conveyed here, I publicly acknowledge their contributions as a small gesture of my gratitude: The Dominican Sisters of Adrian, Michigan--for granting me a full-time study leave, for providing the financial resources for my education, and for their prayerful support. Special recognition is given to Sisters Nadine Foley, Catherine McKillop, Kathleen Therese McCann, and Mary Hrovat, and the Campus Community at Barry College, Miami, Florida. Dr. Louis Stamatakos--adviser and dissertation chairperson, for his constant, enthusiastic support and encouragement; his timely questions; and his professional insight. Dr. Richard Featherstone--for his sensitivity, availability, and willingness to listen. Dr. Howard Teitelbaum--for his example of scholarly teaching and research and his patience with a struggling Statistics student. Dr. Sam Moore-~for the stimulation and challenge he provided in and out of the classroom. Drs. Keith Anderson and Lawrence Foster--for their support and advice. For special assistance with the dissertation I acknowledge: John Gaffney, President of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan, and his staff Dr. Marylee Davis, Assistant Vice-President for Administration and Public Affairs, Michigan State University Martha Meaders, Reference Librarian, Michigan State University Jo Grandstaff and Cindy Krisko, typists Sue Cooley, dissertation typist Sisters Betty Jenkins and Catherine T. Sibal, proofreaders For their love, friendship, and confidence in me, I acknowledge: my parents, Nora and Michael; my sisters and brothers, Michael and Mary, Noreen and David, Olivia, and Joseph and Bunny special friends--Candace Grout, Mary Ellen McClanaghan, O.P., Eileen McDonough, Eileen Olsen, Rita Schaefer, O.P., and Suzanne Schreiber, O.P. new friends--Dr. Jane Featherstone, Rev. Jake Foglio, Carol and Ken Hopper, Dr. Horace King, Evelyn Piche, O.P., and George and Joyce Nallman the religious women with whom I lived--Sisters Anne Brooks, SNJM, Ann Champagne, IHM, Betty Jenkins, O.P., Wen l;i quang, S.Sp.S., Donna Schlaff, O.P., Catherine T. Sibal, O.P., and Mary Hallo, O.P. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................ LIST OF FIGURES ........................ LIST OF APPENDICES ...................... Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ...................... Introduction .................... Statement of the Problem .............. Purposes of the Study ................ Significance of the Study .............. Design ....................... Assumptions ..................... Definition of Terms ................. Limitations of the Study .............. Organization of the Study .............. 11. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ............. Introduction .................... Independent Higher Education in the l9805 ...... Present Status of Independent Higher Education . . Causal Factors .................. Selected Solutions ................ Independent Higher Education's Relationship to State Governments ................. Historical Background ............... Present Status .................. Higher Education-State Government Relations ..... The Participants ................. Factors Affecting the Higher Education-State Government Relationship ............. Methods/Techniques/Tactics of Relating to State Government Officials .............. Communication Between Educators and State Government Officials .............. Summary ....................... —l dLDNOS-b-hwmd III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........... Introduction .................... DeveIOpment of the Study .............. Design of the Study ................ Study Population ................. Research Questions and Hypotheses ......... The Survey Instruments ............... The Questionnaire ................ The Interview .................. Data-Collection Procedures ............. The Questionnaire ................ The Interviews .................. Coding and Keypunching of Questionnaire Data . . . . Data Processing .................. Data Analyses ................... Significance Level for Questionnaire Data ..... IV. ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATA ............ Introduction .................... Analysis of Haves One and Two ........... Profile of Respondents Using Selected Factors . . . Personal Profile ................. Institutional Profile .............. Major Findings of the Questionnaire Data ...... Introduction ................... Question I--Research Question l ......... Question II--Research Question 5 ......... Question III-~Research Question 5 ........ Question IV--Research Question 5 ......... Question V--Research Question 2 ......... Question VI--Research Question 6 ......... Question VII--Research Question 5 ........ Question VIII--Research Question 3 ........ Question IX--Research Question 8 ......... Question X--Research Questions 3 and 7 ...... Question XI--Research Question 4 ......... Summary ..................... Results of Testing of Hypotheses .......... Hypotheses l and 2 ................ Hypothesis 3 ................... Hypothesis 4 ................... Hypothesis 5 ................... Hypothesis 6 ................... Hypothesis 7 ................... Hypothesis 8 ................... vi Hypothesis 9 ................... Hypothesis l0 .................. Summary ...................... V. ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWS .............. Introduction .................... Profile of Interviewees Using Selected Factors . . . Personal Profile ................. Institutional Profile .............. Major Findings From Interview Data ......... Interview Question I ............... Interview Question 2 ............... Interview Question 3 ............... Interview Question 4 ............... Interview Question 5 ............... Interview Question 6 ............... Interview Question 7 ............... Interview Question 8 ............... Interview Question 9 ............... Interview Question ID .............. Summary ...................... VI. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . Summary of the Study ................ Development of the Research Project ....... Purposes of the Study .............. Design of the Study ............... Study Population ................. The Survey Instruments .............. Data Processing and Analyses ........... Summary of the Major Findings of the Analyses of Questionnaire Data and Interview Information . . . Profile of Respondents and Interviewees Using Selected Factors ................ Summary of Major Findings ............ Results of Testing of Hypotheses ......... Conclusions and Implications ............ Recommendations for Further Study ......... APPENDICES .......................... REFERENCES .......................... vii Page I35 I36 I37 I39 I39 I39 I39 I4I I42 I43 I46 I47 I49 152 I53 I56 159 I65 167 I69 I73 I73 I73 I73 I74 I75 I75 I77 I78 I78 I80 I98 203 2II 2I6 263 LIST OF TABLES Frequencies and Percentages of Institutions in the Study Population by State .............. tyTest for Significant Differences Between Waves One and Two by Institutional Characteristics ...... Frequencies and Percentages of Educational Level of Respondents by Highest Degree Earned ........ Frequencies and Percentages of Presidential Tenure by Years in Office ................... Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Previous Presidential Experience ............... Frequencies and Percentages of Enrollment Categories of Responding Institutions ............. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Distance From State Capitals by Mileage Categories ...... Frequencies and Percentages of Institutions in Study Population and Respondent Population by State . . . . Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents per State by State ...................... Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Importance of Question V-e(2): Nature of Institution (Church Related or Non-church Related) ........... Frequencies and Percentages of ResponseS'UJImportance of Question V-e(2): Nature of Institution (Church Related or Non-church Related) by Type of Institu- tional Control ................... Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Question V-d: Importance of an Institution's Reliance on Federal Monies ................... viii Page 59 76 77 78 79 80 BI 82 82 9I 92 94 .12. .13. .I4. .15. .16. .17. .18. .19. .20. .21. .22. .23. .24. .25. .26. Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Question V-i: Importance of President's Academic Preparation and Background ............. Frequencies and Percentages of Forms of Communication Used With District Legislators ........... Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Use of Support Groups ................... Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Question VIII-f: How Often Respondents Sponsor Social Gatherings for State Government Officials Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Percep- tions of Effectiveness of Method XI-b(l) and XI-j . . Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 3 ........ Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to V-c: Importance of an Institution's Reliance on State Aid to Students ................ Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to V-e(l): Importance of the Specific Nature of the Institution--College or University ......... Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to V-e(3): Importance of the Specific Nature of the Institution--Enrollment Size ............ Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to V-g: Importance of Political Literature or Information Read by the President .......... Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to V-l: Importance of People Who Advise the President on Public Policy Matters .............. Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 4 ........ Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 5 ........ Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to VIII-f: Frequency of Sponsoring Social Gatherings for State Officials ................. Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 6 ........ ix Page 100 105 113 115 117 119 121 122 124 125 127 128 Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 7 ........ 130 Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by State to Effectiveness of XI-a: Attending Legislative Committee Meetings ................. l31 Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 8 ........ 133 Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by Presidential Tenure to Effectiveness of XI-a: Attending Legislative Committee Meetings ...... 134 Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 9 ........ 136 Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis IO ........ 137 Frequencies and Percentages of Educational Level of Interviewees by Highest Degree Earned ........ 140 Frequencies and Percentages of Presidential Tenure of Interviewees by Years in Office ......... 141 Frequencies and Percentages of Enrollment of Interviewees' Institutions by Enrollment Categories . 142 Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Perceptions of Extending Personal Favors as a Form of Influencing Voting Patterns of State Officials . . 150 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page L-l. Frequencies of Study Population and Respondent Population by State ................. 256 M-l. Frequencies of Respondent Population by Enrollment Categories ..................... 258 xi Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES THE QUESTIONNAIRE ................... RELATIONSHIP OF QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................... INTERVIEW GUIDE, MAY-JUNE 1980 ............ RELATIONSHIP OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE . COVER LETTER TO MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS ................ COVER LETTER TO NON-MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS .............. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NONRESPONDENTS .......... LOG 0F QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS, APRIL 29-JUNE 6, 1980 . . CODEBOOK ....................... FREQUENCIES OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ........ QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS ............... FREQUENCIES OF STUDY POPULATION AND RESPONDENT POPULATION BY STATE ................. FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENT POPULATION BY ENROLLMENT CATEGORIES ..................... RELATIONSHIP OF HYPOTHESES TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS ............... INTERVIEWEES ..................... xii Page 217 222 224 228 230 233 236 238 240 245 250 255 257 259 261 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction With the advent of the 19805, higher education has entered what Sargent (1978) referred to as "the difficult decade." Besides the bleak and ominous forecasts of steadily rising costs, diminishing sources of income, leveling and/or declining enrollments, higher education is faced with carefully examining, critically evaluating, and cautiously nourishing its relationship to state government. For the independent sector of higher education, the nature of its relationship to state government has become a crucial factor often related to institutional survival. Folger (1976) claimed that if maintaining a strong private sector is important, "new policies and new state action will be needed" (p. 6). Hollander (1978) stated that the way in which state aid is made available to independent institutions will be a determining factor in either their continuing or diminishing significance in American higher education. Howe (1979) reported that besides the efforts made by the independent col- leges and universities to attract students and private funds, their survival will also rest on "their political effectiveness in influenc- ing federal and state policies and appropriations" (p. 29). Statement of the Problem The literature of the politics of higher education was replete with references to the apolitical and antipolitical attitudes of educators. Frequent mention was made of frustration and, in some cases, of animosity between politicians and academicians (Budig & Rives, 1973; Halperin, 1974; Klebanoff, 1976; McNamara, I975; Vasconcellos, 1974; Watkins, 1972). Authors noted the poor politi- cal skills and low-key political advocacy on the part of administrators and the timid and reserved use by colleges and universities of their political clout (Black, 1976; Gladieux, 1977; Millett, 1974). According to Gove and Carpenter (1977), the literature of higher education . . . does not discuss to any great extent the manner by which colleges and univer- sities present their cases to state government and try to affect the development of government policy (p. 359). Structures have been created to facilitate the political pros- pects of higher education, and a concern for the most effective and appropriate ways to defend and promote higher education interests has developed. However, determining which strate- gies are most effective necessitates careful research. Which people from the university are most effective in influencing which government officials using what methods (p. 372)? Gove and Carpenter concluded that "further research is needed to clarify the relationship of . . . roles, targets, actors, and issues at the state level“ (p. 372). Carswell (1978) stated that "the politics of education is by far one of the most neglected areas of educational research" (p. 3). Murray (1976) said, "The politics of higher education continues to be a fascinating, significant, and unfortunately, ignored area of academic research" (p. 79). A search of the Current Index to Journals in Education, the Education Index, and computer searches of Dissertation Abstracts and ERIC revealed virtually no research which specifically and directly pertained to the relationship of independent colleges and universities to state governments. Most of the research in the area of the poli- tics of education focused on public school superintendents; adminis- trators of public colleges and universities; perceptions of state legislators toward education, their public policy-making role; and communication styles between legislators and state universities or a state university system (Aronofsky, 1975; Borgestad, 1976; Corrick, 1975; Erwin, 1975; Glasser, 1968; Hartford, 1976; Hazard, 1969; Lott, 1975; Morford, 1975; Schlafmann, 1970; Vann, 1970; White, 1970; among others). The lack of relevant research coupled with the investigator's keen interest in the politics of higher education led to the develOp- ment of this study, which was endorsed by the Association of Indepen- dent Colleges and Universities of Michigan (AICUM) through its President, John Gaffney. Purposes of the Study 1. To describe the relationship of selected independent col- leges and universities to state governments in Region I of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU): the key participants; the factors which impinged upon the relation- ship; theIfonmsof communication, and the methods and tactics used by the colleges and universities to relate to elected state government officials, specifically, the Governor and state legislators. 2. To identify the effectiveness of a select group of methods and tactics in influencing the voting patterns of elected state gov- ernment officials. Significance of the Study The significance of the study was based on the following points: I. It will address a research need identified in relevant, contemporary research. 2. It will obtain information which may be of particular interest and use to presidents of independent colleges and universities. 3. It will provide information which may be helpful to the leadership and membership of state associations/federations/councils of independent colleges and universities. 4. It will provide information which may serve as a basis for comparison with the public sector of higher education or with other geographic regions of independent colleges and universities. DiSian To identify the key participants, methods and tactics, and the forms of communication which characterized the relationship of selected independent colleges and universities to state governments in Region I of NAICU, and to identify the factors which impinged upon the relationship, a survey questionnaire was mailed to the presidents of the institutions in the study population. The study population consisted of all independent nonprofit or church-affiliated, non- proprietary, accredited institutions of higher education in Region I of NAICU, with enrollments of at least 200 students, which grant, at a minimum, the baccalaureate degree in the liberal arts, or the liberal arts and professional programs, or the liberal arts and teacher education programs. The following 11 states comprise Region I of NAICU: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The survey instrument (Appendix A), with a cover letter of introduction and explanation, was mailed to the presidents of the institutions in the study population requesting their participation in the study. Survey instrument items were based on information derived from relevant literature and research, and from knowledge gained by the investigator during her internship with the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan (AICUM). The survey instrument was pilot tested prior to final publica- tion and distribution. Participants in the pilot test were former presidents of Michigan independent colleges and universities. A secondary research tool, a structured interview, was used to gather additional information of a quantitative mode. The investi- gator prepared a preliminary interview guide and pilot tested the questions in an effort to test their validity and to provide experi— ence for the investigator in conducting research interviews. A final interview guide was developed following the pilot test and the return of approximately 100 questionnaires. The interview population for the study consisted of presidents of the Michigan independent colleges and universities in the study population. After soliciting participation from the Michigan presidents and conducting the interviews, the data were analyzed by the inves- tigator together with the results of the survey questionnaires. Major findings from the interviews and questionnaires are reported in summary, descriptive, and/or statistical format with accompanying narrative. Assumptions Following is an enumeration of the basic assumptions upon which this study was developed: 1. State governments will play an increasingly active and powerful role in the future of higher education. 2. Most colleges and universities in the independent sector rely and will continue to rely on state financial assistance, espe- cially in the form of student aid, and most states will continue to provide such financial assistance to students in the independent sector. 3. A variety of factors impinge on the nature of the relation- ship between independent colleges and universities and state govern- ments. 4. Since most independent colleges and universities do not staff a governmental or legislative relations office whose purpose is to serve as a liaison to the state or federal government, the president of the independent college or university is perceived to be the most qualified institutional representative to identify the nature of the institution's relationship to state government. 5. Most independent colleges and universities are members of a state association of independent colleges and universities. 6. There are legitimate and accepted techniques, methods, and tactics for use by individuals and/or groups who wish to initiate, maintain, and enhance relationships with elected state government officials. 7. The respondents will provide honest answers to the survey questionnaire and to the interview questions. 8. The respondent will be the one to whom the questionnaire was addressed, namely, the president of the independent college or uni- versity. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in accordance with their use and meaning in this study: Independent college/university--An independent nonprofit or church-affiliated, nonproprietary college or university governed by an independent Board of Trustees or Directors. Accredited--Those institutions which are accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. State associations--Those associations, federations, or councils affiliated with the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) which represent their member institutions in a specific state. Region I of NAICU--One of five geographic regions of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU). Region I is comprised of the following states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Alggflg-The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan. President-~The chief executive officer of a college or univer- sity, appointed by a governing board, and charged with the overall administration and operation of the institution. State governments--The office of the Governor and the legislative branches of a state government. Elected state government officials--The Governor and state sena- tors and representatives. Governor-~The elected head of any state in the United States. Legislature--The elected body of state senators and representa- tives. Legislator-~A state senator or representative. Legislation--Any matter or issue that requires the attention and consent of the state legislature and the Governor, and becomes a law when adopted. Educational legislation--State legislation that has an impact on either higher education in general or independent higher education in particular. Respondents--The presidents of the independent colleges and universities in Region I of NAICU who participated in the study by completing the survey instrument. Interviewees--The Michigan independent college and university presidents who participated in the study by granting the investi- gator an interview. They may also be referred to as the Michigan presidents. Investigator-~The individual who originated the study, conducted the research and the interviews, and prepared the written results of the findings. The investigator may also be referred to as the interviewer. Limitations of the Study The limitations of the study were as follows: 1. The study was limited to a population of the independent nonprofit or church-affiliated colleges and universities in the 11 states which comprise Region I of the National Association of Inde- pendent Colleges and Universities (NAICU): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 2. The p0pulation was further limited to those nonprofit or church-affiliated colleges and universities in Region I of NAICU which met all of the following criteria: nonproprietary colleges and uni- versities accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools; enrolling at least 200 students; granting, at a minimum, the baccalaureate degree in the liberal arts, or the liberal arts and the professions, or the liberal arts and teacher preparation. 3. The survey and interview instruments were designed to gather appropriate factual data for the study. Data interpretation was 10 subject to the limitations generally associated with the use of such data-gathering techniques. Although the instrument and interview guide used in the study were deve10ped by the investigator, the sur- vey instrument was pilot tested (Chapter III), and those knowledge— able of questionnaire design in social science research were consulted and provided advice and assistance as did the executive officers of the state association of independent colleges and universities in Michigan (AICUM). 4. The study was limited by the degree to which the respondents understood the instruments and by the accuracy and honesty of their responses. 5. The literature review included ERIC and Dissertation Abstracts searches, books, periodicals, and documents on file in the Michigan State University Library and the State of Michigan Library, and books and materials owned or borrowed by the investigator. 6. Although data-gathering procedures were carefully considered and systematically planned, in order to insure an adequate return of the questionnaire from the study population, less than 100% was anticipated. While an adequate percentage of return was received, conclusions and findings cannot be accurately generalized beyond those who completed the questionnaire and participated in the inter- view. Representativeness was limited to those institutions which participated in the study. Nonparticipants may be different from questionnaire and interview respondents. 11 Organization of the Study The study is presented in six chapters. Chapter I includes an introduction and statement of the problem; the purposes, significance, and design of the study; basic assumptions; definition of terms; limitations; and a statement of the organization of the study. A review of selected relevant literature and research is con- tained in Chapter II. The design of the study, methodology, instrumentation, and collec- tion and treatment of the data comprise Chapter III. The major findings from analysis of quantitative data are pre- sented in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a presentation and an analysis of the infor- mation obtained from the structured interviews. A summary and discussion of the major findings are included in Chapter VI, followed by implications of the study and recommendations. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE Introduction The literature reviewed by the investigator for this research study centered on writings and research concerning: the future of higher education in general, and the future of independent higher education in particular; the politics of education with emphasis on the relationship between independent higher education and state gov- ernments; the role of the college/university president in the politi- cal process; the political process itself, as manifested in state government; and the perceptions of governors, legislators, educators, and others with respect to the present status and future directions for educational-political interactions, especially at the state level. Besides a traditional manual search of the literature by the investigator, two additional approaches were used. A literature search was conducted through the computer retrieval sources of ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), and a computer search of dissertations was conducted using the comprehensive dissertation query service of Xerox University Microfilms International. Both computer- ized searches were facilitated by staff of the Michigan State Univer- sity Library. Because of the volume of literature and information reviewed in the area of the politics of education, the investigator was selective 12 13 in the choices she made for inclusion in Chapter 11. Given the pur- poses of the study as specified in Chapter I, the literature presented in this chapter is related to higher education-state government relations: the factors which impinge upon such relations; the par- ticipants in the relationship; and the techniques, methods, tactics, or activities which foster and hinder effective relationships. Accordingly, the literature presented in this chapter will pp; be concerned with the following topics related to independent higher education: the purposes, significance, or reasons for the survival of the independent sector; descriptions of the various forms of financial assistance rendered to the sector by the states; or argu- ments for or against state aid to independent colleges and univer- sities. Finally, it is noted that while most of the literature and research reviewed for this study centered on relations between publicly supported institutions and state governments, it is nevertheless pre- sented especially since some of the content was used by the investi- gator in developing parts of the questionnaire. Independent Higher Education in the 19805 In Higher Education and the 19805, Millett (1978) wrote: As of 1977-78 higher education in the United States has entered upon a period of profound crisis. There is reason to believe that at a minimum this period of crisis will extend throughout the decade of the 19805 (p. l). Sargent (1978) labeled the future of American higher education as "enigmatic." Boston University's president, John R. Silber, said: "There are going to be academic ghost towns all over the country" 14 (U.S. News & World Report, May 29, 1978, p. 64). Magarrell (1980a). reported that "higher education is welcoming the 1980's (the 'not- me' decade) with a notable lack of enthusiasm" (p. 6). Sabin (1974) surmised that if college presidents were asked to state the most important challenge to their institutions for the remainder of this century, "the majority would probably answer 'survival'" (p. 200). Bennis (1975) observed: "Today's supreme challenge for higher education is, quite simply, survival" (p. 20). The theme of survival was also mentioned by Harvey and Stewart (1975), Lyman (1975), Sawhill (1979), and Simmons (1975), among others. Titles such as the following describe the current concern by some over the uncertain future of the independent sector of American higher education: "Does Private Education Have a Future?" (Bowen, 1971); "Private Institutions in Peril" (Cartter, 1972); "What Future for the Private College?" (Howe, 1979); "Private Colleges Cry 'Help'!" (Time, 1979); ”Private Colleges Headed for Extinction" (U§A_ leggy, 1979); "In Defense of the Private Sector" (Lyman, 1975). Benezet reported in 1977 that "since 1973 more than 150 studies have been counted that bear wholly or partially on problems of the private institution" (p. 201). Present Status of Independent Higher Education Causal Factors According to contemporary educators, critics of higher educa- tion, and political scientists, the decline in the number of students enrolled in independent colleges and universities since 1950, and 15 the precarious future being forecast for many of those institutions are the result of interrelated economic, social, educational, and political factors. The most frequently cited causes of the present condition of the independent sector were: the creation of community colleges, with very low tuitions, in small communities often served by an inde- pendent college (Sullivan, 1978, p. 31); scarcity of financial resources, especially meager endowments (Budig, 1977, p. 375; Muller, 1977, pp. vii-viii); double-digit inflation and the energy crisis (Edwards, 1978, p. 12); demographic trends; dwindling job prospects for college students; intensification of the competition for public resources (Breneman & Finn, 1978; Cheit, 1971; Jellema, 1973; Jenny & Wynn, 1970; A National Policy for Private Higher Education, 1974); decreases in federal funding; and flagging alumni support (Finney, 1975). Cartter (1972) claimed that the primary cause for the problems of the independent sector (which are mainly financial) is "the pricing decisions made in the public sector," andif the situation is not sharply reversed "this widening differential between the costs of attending public versus private institutions" will cause many such institutions "to waste away or . . . of necessity become full charges of the state" (p. 146). On July 21, 1980, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that "the average tuition at private, four-year colleges and univer- sities in 1980-81 will be "3,279, up 10.1 per cent from last year. . . . 16 The average tuition at public colleges and universities will be $706, an increase of 4.4 per cent" (p. 1). Average total costs for a resident student in a four-year pri- vate institution (room, board, tuition, fees, and other expenses) will be $6,082, up 10.3%, and $3,409 at public four-year institutions, an increase of 8.1% (The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 2, 1980, p. 10). As projections are made regarding the future of higher educa- tion, it is abundantly clear that the independent sector which has already experienced declines in enrollment in the last two decades will, in the years to come, "be hit harder than public institutions" (Magarrell, 1980a, p. 6). Kerr (1979) said that the future of the private sector will be one of five key issues for higher education in the next decade. According to a report from the National Center for Education Statistics, "as many as 200 small, private, liberal- arts institutions" may close during the 19805 (Magarrell, 1980c, p. 1). President Kemeny of Dartmouth observed that "if present trends continue, about half of them [independent colleges] are going out of business" ("Private Colleges Cry 'Help,'" 1979, p. 38). According to a report issued by the National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities (1980), 141 independent insti- tutions closed during the 19705: 57 four-year colleges, 45 two-year colleges, and 39 specialized institutions (Fadil & Carter, 1980, p. 1). 17 Selected Solutions A variety and a multitude of solutions for the meaningful and significant survival of independent colleges and universities were reflected in contemporary higher education literature (Bowen, 1971; Cartter, 1972; The Reports of the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980; Fisher, 1979; Howe, 1979; King, 1975; Lantz, 1975; Sawhill, 1979; Shulman, 1974; Silber, 1975, 1976; Simmons, 1975). While the majority of recom- mendations focused on self-help measures, many authors stated the necessity of additional government financial assistance, especially in the form of state aid to students. According to Astin and Lee (1972), "the most obvious answer [to the problems of some independent colleges] is through outside aid, probably by the state" (p. 102). Howe (1979) proposed the need for "better informed and more equitable [state] policies" (p. 70). Pyke (1979) said that ”without additional public support, the 1,500 private colleges and universities in America will drop to 170 in the next 30 years" (USA Today, February 1979, p. 8). Lantz (1975) maintained that expenditures of money for student aid are "a critical factor in the future of private colleges" (p. 385), and he recommended that independent colleges solve their problems collectively. "The problem of student aid cannot ultimately be resolved by individual private colleges pursuing their own courses unmindful of the rest of the private sector" (p. 395). The literature related to the future of higher education, includ— ing the future of many independent colleges in the 19805, was filled 18 with references to the increasingly visible and powerful role to be played by state governments. "Whatever changes may occur on the federal scene, state govern- ments will continue to be powerful forces in determining the future of private colleges" (Howe, 1979, p. 29). Millett (1978) wrote that there are "scarcely any decisions of state government in the foresee- able future which will not have some impact upon the survival power of private colleges" (p. 23). In referring to the "difficult decade" (1980-90), Sargent (1978) said that "it would be difficult to describe, with accuracy, the future of higher education . . . for we do not know how the newest and most powerful force, the legislature, will affect higher education" (p. 467). The final report of the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1980) forecast that "the period ahead will be a state [government] period in terms of new initiatives and responsibilities for the welfare of higher education" (The Chronicle of Higher Educa- tipp, January 29, 1980, p. 10). Hodgkinson (1979) took a forward look at higher education in 1985 and reported that "state government increased dramatically in size" and that "more power over the educationalprogram came to be vested in the state" (p. 131). Maeroff (1978) offered another forecast for the 19805: There will be a bitter fight for funds, and many of the battle- fields are bound to be in state capitals. The private colleges and universities will try to lengthen the inroads they have made in convincing lawmakers to cut them in on a slice of the pie formerly served to public institutions only (p. 18). l9 Muller (cited in Howard, 1977), president of Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, claimed: "Without state assistance many of the nation's inde- pendent colleges and universities will not survive as such" (p. vii). Jenny (1976) warned that "the political decks may be stacked such that privately controlled institutions will die along the way as we march into the 19805" (p. 47). MacLaury (1978) echoed Jenny's fears. In the Foreword to Public Policy and Private Higher Education, he wrote: Leaders of private higher education fear that retrenchment will take place at their expense as they compete with state— subsidized institutions in a shrinking marketplace. Government --state and federal--wi11 strongly influence the outcome of this competition, since both public and private sectors of higher education are highly dependent on the government for financial support, both direct and indirect (p. vii). Independent Higher Education's Relationship to State Governments Historical Background More than 1,100 accredited, independent, nonprofit institutions of higher education exist in 49 of the 50 states enrolling close to two million students (Minter & Bowen, 1980). They vary in size, location, control, philosophy, programs, and the nature of their impact upon American higher education. Independent colleges and universities trace their heritage to the founding of Harvard by legislative action in 1636, to be followed by the founding of William and Mary (1693), Yale (1701), and Prince- ton (1746). The colonial colleges, chartered by the states, were seen as public trusts, subject to state regulations, and were neither public nor private in the modern use of those terms. Sectarian 20 controversies following the American Revolution and the decision of the Dartmouth College case led to an undermining of the original colonial college system. State legislatures began to establish their own nonsectarian public colleges, controlled by state-appointed trustees, and specifically subject to legislative supervision (Berdahl, 1971; Jencks & Riesman, 1968, Chapter VI). After the Civil War, the two systems of higher education began to diverge in significant ways. Whereas colleges in the colonial period and early national period had been recipients of state assis- tance in the form of permission to operate lotteries and the granting of lands, the opening of hundreds of small colleges forced the states to restrict and, in some cases, to withdraw their support to nonpublic institutions. In time, colleges identified with a religious denomi- nation lost favor "as objects of public support," and "most states abandoned public assistance to the so-called private colleges, but the change was uneven and uncertain" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 188). Rudolph reported that as late as 1926 state legislators from Vermont, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were still providing state support to their private colleges (p. 189). At the end of the nineteenth century, private colleges "still enrolled over two thirds of all college and university students, but the public sector's share had begun to increase slowly but steadily, rising to about 50 percent by the 19305" (Berdahl, 1971, p. 202). In 1950, independent colleges and universities accounted for 50% of the enrollment in higher education, 41% in 1960, and 22% in 1979. “If that rate of increase should continue until 1995, we would in 21 effect face the extinction of the independent sector of American higher education" (Howe, 1979, p. 28). Present Status According to Howe (1979), education is "the main business of the states, the largest single enterprise among their many responsi- bilities" (p. 29). Hollander (1978) noted the rapid increase in higher education's relative share of state budgets--"85 percent in the average state over the past decade" (p. 43). Magarrell (l980b)reported that more than $19 billion was approp- riated by the states in 1979-80 for higher education (p. 8). The "Fact File" in The Chronicle of Higher Education (November 5, 1979) showed that "more than 1.2 million students" received scholarships or tuition grants and that "spending by states and territories for stu- dent aid in 1979-80 totaled $852 million" (p. 11). According to Saffell (1978), "States spend more money on education than they do for any other single function" (p. 259). In addition, he said that "state funds account for about one-half the income of public colleges" (p. 263). The National Association of State Scholarship and Grant Programs reported in its eleventh annual survey that the average award of state monies for students attending independent colleges or universi- ties increased from $986 to $1,034 in the 1979-80 academic year. The total amount of dollars allocated by the states for students in the independent sector was close to $502 million for 1979-80, represent- ing 485,651 awards to students (p. 2). 22 According to Breneman and Finn (1978), "student aid programs continue to be the dominant mechanism for channeling state funds into private colleges, whereas direct institutional subsidies are the main form of state support for the public sector" (p. 88). State aid to the independent sector generally takes the form of financial aid to students (grants and scholarships); other forms of assistance include general support grants to institutions, support for specific programs or purposes, and indirect assistance measures such as tax privileges for the institution (Benezet, 1976; Berdahl, 1978; Folger, 1976; Howard, 1977; Jonsen, 1980; Olliver, 1979; The States and Private Higher Education, 1977). "When aid to institutions and to students are combined, state aid to private higher education appears as a growing but still small component of the budgets of both--states and the institutions" (Breneman & Finn, 1978, p. 90). Higher Education-State Government Relations The Participants Background. Historically, the relationships between academicians and politicians have been colored by the stereotypic notions each has of the other. McNamara (1975) reported that educators call politicians "blather- skites, compromisers, and opportunists" while politicians see edu- cators as "stuffy, sanctimonious prigs who are out of touch with reality" (p. 144). Goodall, Holderman, and Nowlan (1971) said that university administrators viewed legislators as "provincial," not 23 "academically oriented or intellectually concerned," and often looked upon these characteristics "with disdain and disgust" (p. 37). Communication between educators and government officials, so crucial to effective relationships, has been hampered and frustrated by mutual criticism and often deep-seated animosity. Budig and Rives (1973) observed that legislators feel that academicians are naive, and they resent naivete "when it appears coupled with obstinancy" (p. 64). King (1975) stated that educators have a "disdain for the tedious mechanics of the political process itself" (p. 122). Some educators fear they will lose their "academic virginity" if they become too involved in political matters (Watkins, 1972, p. 521). Halperin (1974) summarized well the prevalent and most fre- quently quoted perceptions which educators and politicians have of each other. The most commonly expressed complaints by educators of politicians were as follows: 1. Politicians have a short-term view of the world. They seldom deal with the sophisticated interplay of social forces. They are too pragmatic and too quick to compromise issues of great impor- tance. 2. Politicians politicize everything they touch and view educa- tion only in terms of political fortunes and outcomes. 3. The politicians' primary interest is in their own constitu- encies and their narrow sectional, ethnic, regional, or economic interests. 24 4. Politicians are poorly informed on educational issues. They seldom take the trouble to master the complex issues with which educators have to deal. 5. There is no continuity in the political process. Legis- lators pass a law and proclaim a policy but educators cannot count on its continued existence. Next year's legislature favors new programs or new fads or does not fund enacted programs. The understandings reached with education connfittee members are forgotten. 6. Politicians tend to be arrogant and often show contempt for anyone who is not a political peer (p. 189). The complaints by politicians of educators, as reported by Halperin, were the following: 1. Educators are arrogant and sanctimonious. They frequently treat us (politicians) as petty creatures, not very bright, not very honest. They see themselves as responsible professionals but view us as political hacks. 2. Rarely do educators have the information we need to make sound policy. 3. There are few groups that speak less clearly, less concisely, and with more obfuscation. Instead of precise, comprehensible, here- and-now language, what we get is usually too olympian, too ut0pian, too abstract, or too fuzzy to be helpful. 4. Educators have little understanding of the legitimacy and importance of the political process. They view our difficult work of negotiating, compromising, balancing interests, and refining public policies as dirty, underhanded, or even immoral. Educators also run 25 counter to sound political practice by playing off their part of education against other educational interests. Instead of a united educational front, we are faced with warring factions. Educators often play up to the executive branch and take sides against the legislatures. 5. Educators only want more money. They seldom consider how to raise public revenues nor do they recognize many competing pri- orities. 6. Educators give lip service to accountability. They tell us they are professionals and we do not have to worry about their acting in a responsible manner. 7. Educators refuse to admit that they are promoting their own interests, economic and professional (p. 190). Governors and legislators. Lockard (1966) observed that "poli- tics is played by ear and intuition, not from a well-marked sonata score" (p. 160). Greenwald (1977) described the American public policy-making process as "fluid, incremental, open-ended, disorderly . an incoherent maze" (p. 10). In order to better understand the politics of higher education, one must know Egg initiates or shapes the policies affecting higher education. The focus must be on the actors in the process (Murray, 1976, p. 80). According to Budig and Rives (1973), the knowing president will maintain open communications with the governor and selected legislative leaders, such as stand- ing committee chairmen, ever mindful of the chief executive's power of budgetary reconmendation and veto and the legis- lature's ultimate power of appropriation (p. 65). 26 Levitt and Feldbaum (1973) reported that the governor is respon- sible for presenting the budget to the legislature "in more than 80 percent of the states," and in the other 20% "the budget is pre- pared by a group that may or may not be subject to control by the governor" (p. 229). Folger (1979) communicated the results of a study conducted by the Education Commission of the States on the formal relationships between the governor and education at all state levels. The study revealed that in the past 20 years "the state role has expanded greatly," that governors and legislatures are becoming more active "in monitoring and pinpointing accountability for the implementation of education-related programs," and that the governor is "the key figure in the deve10pment of the budget in all but a handful of states" (p. 30). Folger concluded that in the 19805 "the relationship of governors and legislators to education will probably change in the direction of . . . more requirements for accountability" (p. 31). Besides influencing education through the budgetary process and signing bills into law, the governor, often the only full-time state official elected at large, has "the discretion to create blue ribbon commissions to study particular problem areas" (Levitt & Feldbaum, 1973, p. 117). The Opinions and beliefs held by governors of 35 states regard- ing higher education were surveyed by Budig (1977). Their comments regarding independent higher education were as follows: Three-fourths of the governors expressed concern about the future of private higher education, favoring some increase in state aid for private colleges and universities. Convinced 27 that private institutions are an essential part of the total system of higher education, they favored direct aid to the students, not to the institutions. They supported the con- tinuance of private higher education because of its role in offering institutional alternatives, student choice, and needed program diversity (p. 375). Budig and Rives (1973) claimed that, while in the last 10 years "governors have been more receptive than legislators to the legiti- mate needs of higher education," it would be unwise for college and university administrators to focus on governors to the exclusion of legislators (p. 65). In the years ahead, "the college president should be careful not to alienate either the governor or the legis- lator because the scale of power in state government is tipped easily" (p. 66). Gaffney (1980a), President of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan (AICUM), said that the key state government officials for the independent sector are the governor; the legislative leadership (by position and by influence), particularly the chairpersons of Appr0priations Committees and Appropriations/Education or Higher Education subcommittees; members of Appropriations and Education Committees; and the state senators and representatives from the institution's district. College and university presidents. According to Gove and Carpenter (1977), among those who speak for a college or university as a legal entity, "the university president is considered the key person in the effort to influence state government decision making" 28 (p. 368). Carswell (1978) reported that his review of the literature "revealed virtually no research regarding the college president's political role" (p. 7). While almost all authors who addressed the various roles of the American college president emphasized the educational leader role, several mentioned the role of the president in political or governmental affairs. Hemphill and Walberg (1967) maintained that "the president must play a key role in . . . securing governmental understanding and support" (p. 4). Coons (1967), a former college president, observed: "The president is wise not to be an ardent political partisan, but he must not be a neuter. Each president has to find for himself the amount of time he devotes to political activity" (p. 70). Kauffman (1974) noted that since the allocation of public resources for pppljg_colleges and universities has become so integral to the political process, "effective political leadership becomes a crucial qualification for those who would head public institutions" (p. 8). Dodds (1962) said that the presidency of a state college or university called for "a certain political savoir faire" (p. 20). Watkins (1972) recommended that educational leaders not dele- gate their responsibility of working with state government officials to a professional lobbyist. While veteran lobbyists "can be of immense assistance," their work will not be successful "without the active participation" of those for whom they work (p. 521). 29 Sheehy (1972), who studied the relationship between Big Ten and Big Eight administrators and state executive and legislative leaders, suggested that, in the future, relations with state govern- ments will depend on a new type of college president, one who can deal skillfully with state officials and who is able to select capable assistants who perform well as his/her representative. Sheehy also found that administrators in both conferences designated a central staff administrator to deal with routine govern- mental affairs and responsibilities. Stoke (1959) compared the job of the public college president who lobbies or placates legislators to the independent college presi- dent who must cultivate private donors. He said there really was no difference. "The one must avoid ‘UMJ much political compromise, and the other must resist the attachment of humiliating or fatal strings to private benefactions" (p. 58). Gaffney (1980b)defined the political role of the independent college or university as follows: The independent college or university president should: 1. be actively involved in the state association of inde- pendent colleges and universities [if one exists] by helping the association establish a good platform for public policy issues; 2. develop personal relationships with district legislators so that they know your institution and its programs. The more they know, the better they will feel about your institution, and will act accordingly in the legislature. 3. be cooperative, and encourage college staff to be coopera- tive, in responding to legitimate data or information requests made by state officials or the state association. Cooperation is critical. 3O Lobbyists. "Majority causes, broadly speaking, do not need lobbies. Most successful lobbies represent minority opinions, and enforce policy-making decisions to which most Americans are either Opposed or indifferent" (Howe & Trott, 1977, p. 5). In addition to working individually to establish communica— tion with state government, private colleges have formed state organizations that in many cases have lobbied exten— sively and successfully for years. Their primary purpose is to gain state financial support for their member colleges, preferably in the form of direct grant assistance (Gove & Carpenter, 1977, p. 369). Gaffney (1976) defined a state association of independent colleges and universities as "an instrument created by and composed of individual and autonomous institutions [independent] joined together to achieve common benefit." "The first priority of a state association should be to achieve the collective goals of its member institutions" (Gaffney, 1980b). According to Olliver (1980), Vice-President of the North Carolina Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, "the first priority of them all [the state associations] is lobbying." Although a few state associations are administered by a member college or university president, most associations have a full-time director (sometimes designated as the executive secretary, president, or executive director) "to coordinate its affairs and pursue its interests in the state capital" (Howe, 1979, p. 31). State associations vary in founding date, reasons for estab- lishment, title, functions, number of staff, budget, and objectives. The state associations are autonomous organizations whose directors 31 form a State Association Executives Council (SAEC). According to Berdahl (1978), in 1960 there were fewer than 10 state associations. The 1980 edition of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) listed 42 state associations, representing 41 states and the District of Columbia. A state association exists in each of the 11 states represented in the study p0pu1ation of this research project. Cove and Carpenter (1977) reported that state associations of independent institutions are strong lobbies in many states. . . . The effect of the private college lobby varies widely from state to state, depending primarily on constitutional provisions, tradition, and the number of private colleges in the state. However, it is safe to say that many state associations have had a major effect on the higher education policies of their states (p. 369). Lantz (1975) addressed the essential need for a united effort among independent institutions: Colleges in the private sector must face problems collec- tively, not individually. The colleges of the private sector must form a united front. There are unique problems in the private sector and these must be presented and explained convincingly to legislators and the public at large (pp. 395, 396). Other support groups. Besides the involvement of college and university presidents, several authors mentioned the participation of campus constituents (faculty, administrators, students, trustees) in institutional-government relations. Nowlan (1976) said that "trustees are often respected regional or at least community leaders who have sensitive and well-developed relationships with political leaders, including legislators" (p. 11). 32 As noted earlier, Sheehy (1972) studied the relationship between chief administrators of Big Ten and Big Eight state-supported institu- tions and the executive and legislative leaders in state government. One of the recommendations in his study was that trustees be encour- aged by their presidents to become more involved in state governmental affairs. By organizing themselves, the Illinois Community College Trustees Association "created a unique instrument for making their local influence felt in the capital" (Gove & Carpenter, 1977, p. 370). Gaffney (l980b)said that trustees were used occasionally by the Michigan state association to support the independent sector's position or an individual member's position regarding a public policy issue. If such involvement is deemed necessary or useful, Gaffney preferred "one on one involvement," i.e., one trustee who knows and is willing is asked to call or visit a particular senator or repre- sentative. Carswell (1978) found that legislators and presidents of state- supported institutions agreed that a college president should encourage board members to express their views to legislators. According to Cove and Carpenter (1977), Faculty members have been involved in official lobbying activities, but in a limited capacity and with mixed results. Although they are sometimes very effective in making presen- tations related to their own special expertise, faculty mem- bers are considered amateurs in areas such as selling the pniversgty budget where they may do more harm than good p. 371 . 33 Henderson, as reported in Gove and Carpenter (1977), noted that “student lobbies are new active in twenty-eight state capitals" and are financed and controlled by students (p. 371). They vary widely in the size of their staffs and budgets. The New York student lobby, for example, has eight paid employees and an annual budget of approximately $70,000 p. 371 . The student lobbies are organized to take stands on Specific issues on a nonpartisan basis. These issues have primarily dealt with money (financial aid and tuition levels) and with opening up the political system (eighteen-year-old vote . The student lobbies have had a considerable effect on legislative decisions, although many observers believe that nowhere have they scored an unqualified success (p. 372). Students in the independent sector are represented in Congress by the Coalition of Independent College and University Students (COPUS), whose executive office is located in Washington, D.C. Founded approximately five years ago, COPUS not only lobbies at the federal level but also encourages and assists in the formation of state lobbying associations of independent college and university students. According to Leifman (1980), National Director of COPUS, at the present time there are 10 such state associations. (Of the 11 states represented in the study p0pulation of this research project, 3 have state associations of independent colleges and uni- versity students--Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.) Factors Affecting the Higher Education-State Government Relationship Common factors. Noting that the differences among state legis- latures are "striking," Lockard (1966) suggested that the following 34 common factors should be considered when referring to legislative functions: 1. political, social, and economic conditions in the state 2. legislative traditions and practices the question or issue before the Legislature possible solutions to the questions distribution of power 001-500 the actors (legislators, interest groups and their repre- sentatives, governors, parties and party leaders, bureaucrats, and various "publics") 7. political party influence Levitt and Feldbaum (1973) observed that the state legislative rule-making function is limited by the following factors: "the national constitution, national laws and treaties, federal court decisions, state constitutions, and decisions of state courts" (p. 202). Besides noting some of the factors mentioned by Lockard, Levitt and Feldbaum discussed the following informal factors that affect legislative rule making: roles (how a legislator acts or how others expect him to behave or how he believes he ought to behave); parties and factions; caucuses within the legislature; informal intralegislative groups; and informal legislative rules and sanctions (pp. 222-26). 35 Saffell (1978) specified the following factors outside the formal state government structure which affect the public policy- making function: the physical environment of the state, economic factors, population size of the state, political culture of the state, sectionalism, and constitutional-legal limitations (pp. 4-10). Sectionalism was defined as "some persistent political similari- ties among adjacent states. Sharing a common cultural, economic, and historical background, states within particular areas exhibit clearly identifiable tendencies" (p. 10). It is noted that the 11 states represented in this research study, the North Central states minus Ohio, are often referred to as the Great Lakes and Great Plains region, and represent a blend of industrialization, urbanization, and agriculture. Saffell reported that this region was above average in wealth and reflected strong two-party competition. He also stated that the region is the least homogeneous of the other sections in the country because it "borders on each of the other three sections and thus some of its regional areas share the characteristics found in other sections" (p. 12). Breneman and Finn (1978) observed that when the United States is divided into regions, the Great Lakes proportion of independent colleges and universities to total institutions equaled 56% (p. 22). Factors specific to independent higher education-state government relations. Gaffney(l980a) enumerated the following factors which he believes have some bearing on the relationship of the independent sector to its respective state government (with no order implied): 36 l. The existence of a state association of independent colleges and universities 2. The personalities of the presidents of the independent institutions 3. The quality of personal relationships developed by the independent presidents with state officials, especially district legislators 4. The location, stature, and reputation of the independent institutions, and the services which they render through their aca- demic programs, to the citizens of the state 5. The state Constitution 6. That which is expedient for a state legislator at a par- ticular time 7. The merits of the issues, pr0posed legislation, regulations, etc., which pertain to independent higher education 8. The past performance of the staff and membership of the state association in responding to the informational needs of the governor or state legislators 9. The number of independent colleges and universities in the state and their student enrollment Gaffney(l980b) maintained that for independent colleges and universities, the state association is "absolutely essential" for two reasons: 1. Unification adds strength [to the efforts of the sector in the legislature]. 2. Unification is so counter to what the public sector does that it becomes a veryeffective approach [to state govern- ment officials]. 37 Gaffney (1979) also commented that the role of a legislative specialist or government liaison for most independent colleges would be "very detrimental in the independent sector. One of the advan- tages I have [as lobbyist for the sector] is collective representa- tion." The characteristics of independent college and university presi- dents which may have an impact on the relationship to state govern- ment officials, according to Gaffney (1980a), are: 1. personality 2. political awareness and experience 3. tenure in office 4. relationship to the state association and involvement at its executive level or membership in association committees or sub- groups. "Personality," said Gaffney, "is not a matter of extrovert or introvert. It is a matter of can and how the president relates to pe0ple." It is essential that the independent college or university be a trustworthy individual in dealings with state officials. The quickest way to get in disfavor with the governor or legislators is to lie or even to exaggerate. This is a business of integrity. If you've lied or exaggerated, no decision maker can trust you. And if they can't trust you, they can't help you (Gaffney, 1980a). Millett (1974), who was president of a state university for 11 years and chancellor of a state public higher education system for eight years, felt that his background in political science and in public administration had positive bearing on his understanding 38 and performance in both positions and his relationship to government officials. Eulau and Quinley (1970) reported from their study of 88 legis- lators and 14 governors in nine states that legislators from states with larger proportions of students enrolled in independent institu- tions "were generally more concerned about the financial problems of private schools and more receptive to some type of direct assistance” than legislators from states with smaller enrollments (p. 96). While many independent institutions are church-affiliated, Howard (1977) stated that, regardless of that factor, the constitu- tion of each state is a factor to be considered since "some state constitutions jealously guard any diversion of public moneys to the private sector" (p. xii). Lockard (1966) also noted the importance of the state constitution and said that "the differences between them are so great that nearly any generalization has to have within it an implied set of exceptions" (p. 83). Legislators and the legislature as key factors. Berdahl (1978) said that one of the most influential factors in the future of higher education in the halls of state legislatures will be the legislators. Perhaps the strongest set of variables is the personal style, political ideology, and dominant values of a state's politi- cal leaders. Historical and demographic conditions, public Opinion, higher education leadership, and state structures of government are not to be discounted, but increasingly the dominant forces in higher education olicy will be those related to elected officials (p. 351?. According to Saffell (1978), the primary functions of legis- lators are as follows: 39 Individual legislators must represent the interests of their constituents. They provide service functions by helping people in their dealings with state and administrative agen- cies and answering other personal requests. Legislators also respond to demands for policy making and explain voting deci- sions to their constituents. Legislators review and evaluate actions of the governor and they oversee the administration of state programs (p. 119). Budig and Rives (1973) recommended that college presidents be aware of the fact that state legislators are no longer representing rural areas, that "reapportionment has triggered dramatic change in legislative composition, interests, and priorities" (p. 64). In the last decade, legislative chambers have been filled with an ever-increasing number of people who are well informed about the problems of higher education because they themselves have experienced college and have sons and daughters who are participants in higher education. In some states the number of college graduates serving in legislative bodies has increased by more than one third (p. 64). Rosenthal (1974) noted that "legislators are more independent, moralistic, aggressive, and issue oriented" than in the past (p. 3). Besides considering who the legislators are as persons and as a group, and their functions, many authors recommended that educators have a clear and thorough understanding of hpy_legislators perform their functions, of how state legislatures work. These are two fac- tors which impinge on educator-politician relationships. One factor to be considered in the functioning of the legis- lature is the structure and role of standing committees and sub- committees. Because legislators are generalists who are trying to make decisions in various and numerous areas of specialization, "American legislatures traditionally do most of their work through 4O committees" (Adrian, 1963, p. 59). "The committee is the key group in the legislative system" (p. 60). Nowlan (1976) reported that the effectiveness of a legislative committee is "closely related to the regard in which it is held by other legislators" (p. 21). While titles and specific functions may vary, most state legis- latures have a committee or subconmittee in one or both houses which addresses education matters in general, or higher education matters in particular. Rosenthal (1974) stated: "The day has passed when the governor and a few legislative leaders can get together with represen- tatives of education and agree on matters. Leaders are depending on their education committees for policies and programs" (p. 3). Eulau and Quinley (1970) reported that in states where legis- lators play a key role in determining appropriations for higher edu- cation, both formal and informal requests . . . tend to be channeled to the individuals who occupy the crucial gate-keeping posi- tions in the legislative hierarchy--particular1y chairmen and senior members of committees or subcommittees dealing with taxes and appr0priations (p. 42). Goodall et a1. (1971) also mentioned the changes taking place in the structure and functioning of state legislatures, and noted the increasing importance of specialized legislative staff to provide astute legislators with the background needed to deal competently with the crucial issues of higher education. . . . The university might be prudent to help cultivate the legislative specialist in higher education, not in the self- ish hope of co-opting him but to provide the interested and perceptive legislator with policy information that all legis- lators would not or could not absorb, thus building depth of understanding within the legislature. A lawmaker will more readily listen to a peer than an outsider (pp. 39, 40). 41 Besides being aware of the intricacies of how legislatures function, educators need to be conscious of the influences on indi- vidual legislative decision making. Davies (1975) said the following factors guide a legislator in making a decision on an issue: their general education, their common sense, their instincts, their biases, and the information and advice they receive. Davies also said that "how one lobbies a legislator depends upon the character and personality of the legislator. Some legislators relish all the attention they can get" (p. 48). Along with personal philosophy, Norwick (1975) mentioned the following factors as also influencing a legislator: the bill's effectiveness (whether it can achieve its goals or can work), fiscal implications, constitutionality of the issue, personal considerations (who is sponsoring the bill), political parties' positions, organized support or opposition, and floor debate on the bill. He claimed that probably the single most influential factor to most legis- lators in deciding how to vote on a bill is the wishes of their constituents, especially those who have the most influence and power. . . . A second factor legislators consider, one that is closely related to the views of their constituents is the extent to which a vote for or against a bill will help or hurt during their next election campaigns. Incumbent legislators have many advantages over their challengers, but they also have the disadvantage of having to explain and defend every con- troversial vote they cast (pp. 70, 71-72). Norwick also observed that the basis for the voting of some legislators is the "direct or indirect financial benefit they did or expect to receive for their votes" (p. 74). Smith (1979) stated that legislators decide on how to vote on a bill "by relying upon others whose opinions and knowledge they 42 trust" (p. 4). Ferguson (1960), in his study of factors which influ- enced the perceptions of 422 legislators in four states, found that the most reliable educational information they received was from education officials and educational associations. Legislators' need for information. Lowery (1966), in his study of the search process of the Education Committee of the California legislature, found that legislators knew their limitations in educa- tional issues and sought information from reliable sources. Legislators, although being generally intelligent and percep- tive men, are not well informed about the subtleties of edu- cational problems and issues. Therefore, the details, the ramifications, and the full effects of complex educational legislation are not as visible to them. Thereby in their decision-making process they generally look beyond their own experiences for data (p. 182). Kimbrough (1964) reported that "some of the most disastrous failures occur [in legislatures] because attempts to initiate edu- cational policies are made without factual support" (p. 278). As noted earlier in this chapter, numerous authors mentioned the often-repeated complaints made by legislators about their relation- ships with educators. Many of those complaints were related to the legislators' unmet needs for relevant, complete, reliable, and accu- rate educational information. Bailey (1974) reported the complaint of one elected official: "Our data base is shockingly inadequate. Responses to responsible political questions tend to emerge too late and in too pretentious and inutile a form" (p. 9). Nowlan (1976) conducted a study of the politics of higher educa- tion in Illinois when he was a member of the Illinois House of 43 Representatives. He reported that two out of every three legis- lators in the study felt they did not receive adequate information to make intelligent decisions on higher education legislation. Among the reasons given for the inadequate information were the fol- lowing: Subjects were too detailed for the time available; formats were not easy to understand; personal contacts with institutional personnel were inadequate. A state legislator, Vasconcellos (1974), said that inadequate information leads to mistaken notions about what higher education is and what it ought to be doing. Howard Klebanoff, another state legislator, wrote in 1976 that educators accuse legislators of not knowing or understanding educa- tional issues, but, he added, legislators lacked the factual infor- mation on which to make complex legislative decisions. Methods/Techniques/Tactics of Relating to State Government Officials Since state lobbying for the independent sector of a state is generally a responsibility of a state association of independent col- leges and universities (as noted earlier in the chapter), the litera- ture which clearly pertained to the purposes, styles, and character- istics of effective formal lobbying will not be presented. A sampling of other techniques, methods, or tactics noted in the literature follows. Blount (1976), a state senator, gave this advice to educators who are actively involved with government officials: ”Educators, your 44 best bet is to work with legislators to gain their confidence. This is the way to win them over for your programs" (p. 3). Vasconcellos (1974) encouraged educators to be more active in getting to know legislators. "Call our attention to the kinds of experiences, information, and personal contacts that would enable us to make better decisions about education" (p. 4). Klebanoff (1976) urged colleges and universities to "take the lead in defending their roles, missions, and goals" while at the same time manifesting an awareness of “the changes taking place in govern- ment, in society, and in student needs" (p. 11). Jenny (1980) suggested that colleges and universities use a coordinated effort in working with state legislatures especially in the area of data collection and presentation. Furman (1978), execu- tive director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education, also recom- mended united efforts, especially since higher education does not have the "visibility and muscle" to compete with elementary schools. He recommended that all segments of higher education--independent, public, and the community colleges--"reduce the infighting, unite as a common front and then get into the legislature, get through the legislature, and get out of the legislature" (p. 5). Smith (1979) suggested the efficacy of attending legislative committee meetings. Legislators, like others, respond to attention. Public pressure applied through personal attendance at committee meetings and floor debate leads to improvements in delib- erative procedures (p. 90). 45 Gladieux (1978) remarked that colleges and universities fail to make use of the political resources at their command, to use their political clout. There are massive numbers of alumni, trustees, and adminis- trators, not to mention faculty and students, who are affected by governmental action toward higher education. The potential power base of colleges and universities is relatively untapped (p. 272). Use of college constituents (trustees, faculty, administrators, students) as support groups in the political relationship between educators and state government officials can be a form of grass roots pressure or assistance from intermediaries. Blount (1976) encour— aged educators to use people who support their causes, and to encourage them to contact their district legislator regarding the educational issue under consideration. This approach is effective "whether you are supporting or opposing a bill" (p. 3). 0n the other hand, Budig and Rives (1973) reported that some governors and legislators were "rankled" when college and university presidents "deployed campus forces at budget time to persuade the electorate," and that, on occasion, such tactics had been viewed by government officials as "blatant prepaganda." Politicians questioned "the propriety of using faculty and administrative staff for the pur- pose of lobbying citizens and pressuring legislators" (p. 63). In commenting on the accomplishments of the independent sector at the Michigan State Capitol, Gaffney (1976) said: We have not accomplished what we have accomplished in Michigan because we created a state association. We have accomplished what we have accomplished because presidents, trustees, alumni, administrators, deans, faculty members, and students have been willing to get involved in the political process. 46 Regarding grass roots pressure through letter writing or tele- phone campaigns, Gaffney (19806) said: We have done very, very little Of this because we're so vastly outnumbered by the public university sector and the community college sector [in the state of Michigan]. We've been careful not to arouse public antagonisms by engaging in letter-writing campaigns and telephone campaigns. In a luncheon address before CASC, Gaffney (1976) deline- ated a number of methods, techniques, or tactics which he recommended to educators who want to involve themselves "in a forthright and honor- able way." Be supportive Of those public policymakers who recognize the value Of the existence of the independent sector, who recog- nize the merits Of freedom Of choice, and who are not afraid to stand up and be counted. Be friendly to, but be critical and non-supportive Of those who steadfastly refuse tO recog- nize the value of our existence. . . . How can we be supportive? Again, simple. Help friends to become elected. Create Opportunities for them to be on your campus with your faculties, with your students, at your commencement. Take them to lunch; have them to dinner; walk them through your campus, let them chat with everyone. Being political is not a dirty process. Not being involved is the sin Of omission. Let them [legislators] know about your constituency: the numbers in your student body, faculty, your board, your alumni. These are all potential voters. A former independent college president suggested the following methods for maintaining effective relationships with legislators: Invite them to your institution. Apprise them Of your programs and needs. Involve them in institutional functions such as Commencement exercises or Founder's Days. . Research their areas of specialty. Know what committees they serve on. . . Legislators have pet projects. Give them an opportunity to speak about these projects with students or faculty. Involve your district legislator in some of your problems, but cautiously, so you don't look as if you're always expect- ing someone else to bat for you (Danatha, 1980). 47 Niess (1966) studied the forces which influenced legislators on educational issues in Missouri and reported that personal contact and relationships with legislators were the most frequently used and the most effective method Of influencing educational legislation. Several methods were found tO be ineffective: stimulated mail, methods involving a threat or intimidation, and contacting legislators outside Of one's district. In a study Of forces and techniques which influenced educational legislation in Colorado, Ness (1966) found that personal contact by constituents from the legislator's home district was the most effec- tive technique, and stimulated letter-writing campaigns were con- sidered least likely to gain support of legislators. Carswell (1978) studied the Opinions of presidents/Chancellors in four-year state-supported colleges and universities, and legis- lators (in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and North Carolina) regarding the role Of the president/chancellor in state legislation. His instrument covered 24 political activities in which a president could engage prior to general elections, prior to the convening Of the state legislature, while the legislature was in session, and miscellaneous political activities. Presidents and legislators agreed that the president should engage in the following miscellaneous activities: I. invite legislators to visit the campus in an effort to improve relations with them 2. be thorOughly familiar with the legislative process, espef cially how a bill is passed 48 3. read articles and bulletins which explain issues 4. discuss educational issues with legislators 5. personally contact legislators representing their district volunteer to speak to educational committees to explain or answer questions regarding budget requests (pp. 91-98). Presidents and legislators were in disagreement with the state- ment that presidents should contact legislators supportive Of higher education. More presidents than legislators agreed with the state- ment but the Opinions of both groups were split (p. 97). Communication Between Educators and State Government Officials In an earlier section Of the chapter, references were made to the legislators' needs for accurate, relevant, and reliable infor- mation from educators as they review proposed educational legislation and make decisions regarding appropriations and policies. Other references noted that the quality and timeliness of communications are factors which affect the relationship between higher education and the legislature. Most of the research pertaining to communication with legis- lators focused on perceptions Of legislators, educators, and/or professional lobbyists (Busta, 1978; De Free, 1971; De Vries, 1960; Levitt & Feldbaum, 1973; Milbrath, 1960). Eulau and Quinley (1970) said that "the comments Of many legis- lative leaders [in their study] suggested that they were happiest when they could find out about the needs Of the colleges and universities on a relatively informal, firsthand basis" (p. 47). 49 They reported that many legislators valued visits to campuses and personal conversations with faculty and administrators. A Kansas state senator was reported as saying: One school has made its needs known directly to me as chair- man Of a committee. And I have taken the committee down to view the problems firsthand. I think this is by all adds the best way to get information to us. . . . We are better able to deal with a problem if we have actually seen it, rather than see it in a fiscal report (pp. 47-48). Eulau and Quinley reported that the same senator suggested that legislative campus tours with meals and entertainment could "provide legislative visitors with more useful firsthand information" (p. 48). While entertaining or inviting a legislator tO lunch or dinner may be considered subtle bribery by some, Levitt and Feldbaum (1973) noted that "it is quite likely used more frequently to make friends than to obtain promises Of votes" (p. 114). Eulau and Quinley also reported that a Texas legislator on the House Appropriations Committee recalled frequent contacts with col- leges and universities: with As a general rule, [I receive information] through talking with the individual presidents of the schools, sometimes the dean or a member of the board Of regents or whatever kind of governing board they have. I have individual conversations with all of these people. . . . I have visited every campus in the state Of Texas, and I have seen firsthand the condi- tion Of their physical situation. And I have rather close contact with all of the administrators (p. 48). The complaint of a Texas lawmaker who had no personal contact colleges and universities was also cited by Eulau and Quinley: In my estimation, higher education people seem to pretty well talk tO themselves. They don't talk to me. . . . This is really hard to take. Unless you go out Of your way and really become interested, you really don't find out what the problems 50 are. I think that the college professors as well as the col- lege administrators ought to have us on their mailing list p. 48 . In Michigan, Gaffney (l980b) said he encourages the presidents in the independent sector to develop personal relationships with legislators from their institutions' districts and recommends that they invite the legislators to visit their campuses. He does not usually recommend that the presidents call, write, or invite govern- ment officials to lunch or dinner until a good personal relationship has been established, or if the state association deems such forms Of communication are necessary or warranted, given political or legis- lative developments. In his study Of superintendents in Iowa, Dunkin (74) found that the most frequently used techniques for contacting district legis- lators were motivated letters, telephone calls, and personal inter- views. Carswell (1978) found that legislators and presidents/Chancellors agreed that presidents should communicate with legislators face-to- face when possible, because it is more effective than telephone calls or written communications. The quality and calibre Of the communications between educators and government Officials, while the subject of frequent criticism from both groups, was also the subject of literature related to improving relationships between the two groups. Smith (1979) corroborated Gaffney's earlier remarks (see page 37): "There is no place where personal integrity is more relied upon and more appreciated than in the legislature" (p. 10). Watkins 51 (1972) wrote of the need for mutual good-will, respect, and grati- tude from academic leaders. Goodall et a1. (1971) said that "the university should recognize that a policy Of Openness and candor is to its own benefit in the long run" (p. 39). In 1974, Millett stated higher education needs "political spokes- men . . . who can understand the glory of higher education but can talk the language Of practical politics" (p. 143). The Committee on Government and Higher Education reported that the institutions which had a successful and harmonious relationship with state government were those whose presidents and trustees willingly, Openly, and freely reported their use of public funds to legislators, state executives, and the public (The Efficiengy Of Freedom, 1959, p. 24). Summary Although most Of the literature and research related to the politics of higher education referred to the public sector, it was, nevertheless, reviewed by the investigator for purposes Of comparison with the independent sector and for develOpment Of parts Of the survey questionnaire. Given the specific purposes of this study (as noted in Chapter I) and the volume Of literature directly and indirectly related to the politics of higher education, the investigator was selective in the choices of literature, information, and research she made for inclusion in this chapter. Emphasis was placed on the rela- tionship Of colleges and universities to state governments: the 52 factors which impinge upon such relations; the participants in the relationship; and the techniques, methods, tactics, or activities which foster and hinder effective relationships. Following is a summary Of the literature reviewed and the infor- mation and research presented in Chapter II: 1. Since the 19505 the independent sector of higher education has been experiencing declines in its percentage of students enrolled in American colleges and universities. A variety Of complex factors, internal and external to the sector, have contributed to the present precarious status and the uncertain future Of many independent insti- tutions. The literature abounded with suggestions and recommendations for the alleviation of the sector's problems and its ultimate sur- vival. 2. Projections regarding the future of higher education in the 19805 were filled with references to higher education's continuing need for government financial assistance and the independent sector's dependence upon the continuation Of state financial aid to its stu- dents. The emergence and strengthening of the role Of state govern- ments in higher education's future in “the difficult decade" was well documented, especially the role to be played by state legislatures. 3. Relationships and communications between educators and politicians have, historically, been colored by the stereotypic, uncomplimentary, critical, and Often hostile notions each has Of the other. While politicians are often viewed by educators as compro- misers and Opportunists, educators are often seen as stuffy and sanctimonious prigs. 53 4. The reported important participants in the relationship of the independent sector to state government were: the presidents of the independent institutions, the state association Of independent colleges and universities (if one exists), the governor, and state legislators, especially legislators from the institutions' districts. Mention was made Of the minimal use of campus constituents (trustees, faculty, students, administrators) in institutional-state government relations. 5. A variety of factors were reported to have an effect On higher education-state government relationships. Some factors were considered common to all relationships--the political, social, and economic conditions of a state; legislative traditions and practices; the legislators, governors, bureaucrats; political party influence and leadership, to mention a few. Factors such as the national and state constitutions, decisions of state courts, formal and informal legislative rules and sanctions were noted as having some bearing on the legislative rule-making function. 6. A number of factors were delineated as having some effect on the relationship of the independent sector to state government, e.g., the existence of a state association of independent colleges and universities; the personalities Of the presidents Of the state's independent institutions; the location, stature, and reputation of the institutions; services rendered to the citizens Of the state through their academic programs; the quality Of personal relation- ships developed by the independent presidents with state officials; that which is expedient for a state legislator at a particular time; 54 the merits of the issues, proposed legislation, or regulations which pertain to independent higher education. 7. Legislators, who they are as individuals and as a group, their functions, and how they perform those functions, were defined as important factors in higher education—state government relations. The importance of ApprOpriations and Education Committees and sub- committees was noted. Numerous citations mentioned a variety Of factors which influence the decisions made by legislators, including but not limited to: their education; common sense, instincts, biases; information and advice they receive; personal philosophy; fiscal and constitutional implications of a particular issue; floor debate on a bill; political party positions; the wishes Of influential and power- ful constituents; and the extent to which a vote for or against a bill wfill help or hurt the legislator in the next election. It was also Observed that some legislators vote on the basis of the organ- ized support or Opposition to a bill or on the direct or indirect financial benefit they expect to receive or have received. 8. Many legislative complaints abOut the performance of edu- cators in the political process centered upon the inability of edu- cators to provide the lawmakers with credible, accurate, relevant, complete, and timely data and information. Research studies pertain- ing to state legislators' perceptions regarding their educational decision-making functions highlighted an almost universal legislative need for an improved educational data base. 9. Since state lobbying for the independent sector Of higher education is generally a responsibility of a state association of 55 independent colleges and universities, the relevant literature which clearly pertained to the nature, purposes, styles, and characteris- tics of formal lobbying was not presented in Chapter II. A sampling of other techniques, methods, or tactics for relating to or influenc- ing state legislators was noted. The advice to educators from state legislators generally related to the improvement of personal relation- ships between the two groups. Educators were asked to improve their provision of useful and timely data and information to political leaders. Colleges and universities were encouraged to defend their roles and missions but also to be cognizant of other state needs and priorities. The use of support groups (trustees, alumni, students, faculty) was viewed by some writers as an effective technique, whereas others noted legislators' displeasure with such "blatant propaganda." Independent college and university presidents were advised to develop personal relationships with district legislators, to support public policymakers who recognize the value of the existence of the sector, and to be friendly to, but critical of, those legislators who con- sistently refused to recognize the value of the sector. l0. Research findings regarding miscellaneous tactics or methods used with legislators revealed that personal contact and relation- ships with legislators were among the most frequently used and the most effective methods of influencing educational legislation. Inef- fective methods included stimulated mail, threats or intimidation tactics, and contacting legislators outside of one's district. ll. Whatever the form of communication used for contacting or relating to state government officials (invitations to visit campus, 56 telephone calls, personal letters), educators were advised to be concerned about the quality and calibre of the communications. Authors observed the need for honesty, personal integrity, good-will, Openness, respect, and gratitude in educational-political rela- tionships. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction In Chapter I, the purposes of the study were presented along with an explanation of the significance of the research. The general design, assumptions, and limitations of the study were also presented. In the present chapter, attention is given to a more detailed explana- tion and description of the population, the development and use of the research instruments, data-collection procedures, and the descriptive and statistical techniques used in analyzing the data. Development of the Study The identification and development of the study evolved from the investigator's experiential background in independent higher edu- cation and from her personal interest in politics, especially the politics of higher education. After defining the study subject and completing an extensive literature review by manual and computer search techniques, further discussion was conducted with professionals in the field of institutional-government relations. The study purposes were refined and confirmed. 57 58 Design of the Study According to Kish (l965), a good sample design should take into consideration the goals of the study, the ability to provide for necessary computations, practicality and feasibility, and economic considerations. The specific nature of the study population was chosen for the following reasons: l. The investigator wished to gather qualitative information as well as quantitative data. Economic factors led to the decision of geographic proximity as a prime consideration. Since Michigan is part of Region I of NAICU, the decision was made to include the other 10 states in Region I as opposed to establishing another geographic criterion. 2. Given the small number of independent colleges and univer- sities which met the criteria of the study (2l3), the investigator deemed it feasible, practical, and economical to survey the all- inclusive group, to be defined as the study population. Studygfgpulation The p0pulation defined for this research consisted of all inde- pendent nonprofit or church-affiliated, nonproprietary, accredited colleges and universities located in Region I of NAICU, with enroll- ments of at least 200 students, and which grant, at a minimum, the baccalaureate degree in the liberal arts, or the liberal arts and professional programs, or the liberal arts and teacher education programs. As noted earlier, Region I of NAICU consists of the 59 following ll states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wis- consin. The names of qualifying institutions were obtained from Ihg_ Education Directory,_Colleges & Universities 1978-79 edition, pub- lished by the National Center for Education Statistics. Table 3.1 lists the states in Region I with the number of institutions which met the study's criteria and each state's percentage of the total population. Table 3.l: Frequencies and Percentages of Institutions in the Study Population by State State :8 %b Illinois 44 2l Indiana 28 l3 Iowa 25 l2 Kansas l6 8 Michigan 23 ll Minnesota l7 8 Missouri 24 ll Nebraska 10 5 North Dakota 2 l South Dakota 6 3 Wisconsin l8 8 Total 2T3 100.0L a . Frequenc1es. bPercentages. cDue to rounding, column totals of percentages may not equal l00.0%. 60 Research Questions and Hypotheses Several research questions were formulated to provide a frame- work for describing and analyzing the data. They were as follows: l. What factors affect the relationship of the independent sector of higher education in Region I of NAICU to state government? 2. What factors affect the relationship of an individual inde- pendent college or university in Region I of NAICU to state government? 3. What methods are used by the colleges and universities to relate to elected state government officials? 4. What is the effectiveness of a select group of methods and tactics in influencing the voting patterns of elected state government officials? 5. Who are the key or significant participants in the rela- tionship? 6. Which forms of communication are preferred by the indepen- dent colleges and universities when relating to elected state government officials? 7. Who provides helpful advice to independent colleges and uni- versities regarding the nature of their relationship with state governments? 8. Which publications provide helpful information? In answering questions l, 2, 3, 4, 6, and part of 5, several null hypotheses were formulated to assist the data analysis. Two characteristics of the responding institutions were designated as 61 independent variables: institutional "state location" and "presi- dential tenure" of the respondent. The null hypotheses for research question I are: 59: H02: The The The :01 There is no significant relationship between respondents' state location and their perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of the independent sector of higher education to state govern- ments in Region I of NAICU. There is no significant relationship between presidential tenure and the respondents' perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of the independent sector of higher education to state governments in Region I of NAICU. null hypotheses for research question 2 are: There is no significant relationship between respondents' state location and their perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of an individual independent college or university to its respective state government in Region I of NAICU. There is no significant relationship between presidential tenure and the respondents' perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of an individual independent college or university to its respective state government in Region I of NAICU. null hypotheses for research question 3 are: There is no significant relationship between respondents' state location and their reported use of various methods and tactics to relate to elected state government officials. There is no significant relationship between presidential tenure and respondents' reported use of various methods and tactics to relate to elected state government officials. null hypotheses for research question 4 are: There is no significant relationship between respondents' location by state and their perceptions of the effective- ness of a select group of methods and tactics to influence the voting patterns of elected state government officials. 62 H08: There is no significant relationship between presidential tenure and the respondents' perceptions of the effective- ness of a select group of methods and tactics to influence the voting patterns of elected state government officials. The null hypothesis for part of research question 5 is: H09: There is no significant relationship between presidential T'T' tenure and the respondents' reported use of support groups in their relationships with elected state government offi- cials. The null hypothesis for research question 6 is: H010: There is no significant relationship between mileage and the respondents' reported use of forms of communication with elected state government officials. The Survey Instruments One of the major tasks of an investigator is to choose depend- able measuring instruments to obtain data suited to the purposes of the specific study. One common way of obtaining such data is to ask questions of a group of subjects. The questionnaire and the interview both represent this technique (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, l972). The collection of data for this descriptive study was accomplished through the use of two methods: written responses to a direct-mail questionnaire and verbal responses in a structured interview. The decision to use both methods was based on the investigator's desire to consider the relationship of independent colleges and universities to their respective state governments in terms of both quantitative as well as qualitative aspects. Use of both the interview and the ques- tionnaire allowed the investigator to explore the relationships with greater depth and clarity. 63 Thepguestionnaire The survey questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed by the investigator in several phases. A comprehensive review of relevant and contemporary literature and research was conducted manually and by computer search. During the phase of the literature review, the investigator had a quarter-term internship for academic credit with the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (AICUM) located in Lansing, Michigan. This experience provided the investi- gator with exposure to the day-by-day operation of the independent college and university lobbying group and the nature and degrees of involvement of the member institutions, in addition to access to AICUM historical documents and communications. The investigator took part in committee work, attended legislative sessions and committee hear- ings, and had several Opportunities to "pick the brain" of AICUM's President, John Gaffney, an experienced, successful, and highly respected state executive director. From information gathered from the literature review and the internship, the investigator developed and designed the questionnaire based on the study's research questions and hypotheses. Two Michigan State University professors assisted the investigator in the process of refining the questions, their language and format. A questionnaire of l2 questions was then pilot tested for clarity of instructions, content, item construction, wording, length, and time for completion. Five former presidents of Michigan independent col- leges and universities comprised the pilot test group. Their years of presidential experience ranged from 4 to 24 years. The institutions 64 they formerly represented met all of the criteria for the study's p0pulation. All five presidents completed the questionnaires and critique forms. In addition, the investigator had several conversa- tions with three of the five participants. Following a detailed and thorough review of the participants' responses and comments, the investigator made minor changes in the overall design and content of the instrument and prepared the instru- ment for final publication. Major questionnaire components. The questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of ll questions which were directly related to the research questions of the study. Appendix B shows the relationship of the con- tents of the questionnaire to the research questions. Demographic data for each responding institution were sought regarding enrollment data, distance in miles from their state Capitol, and membership in a state association, federation, or council of independent colleges and universities. Information was also sought from the respondents regarding previous experience as a college or university president, tenure in his/her present position, and educa- tional background. Validity of the instrument. Validity is the ability of a survey instrument to measure what it sets out to measure (Moser & Kalton, l972). Validity is not an easy or straightforward concept because there are several types of validity. Following the traditional notions of validity suggested by Ebel (l972), this study claimed both content and concurrent validity. As a result of a comprehensive and systematic develOpment of the questionnaire and the interview guide 65 (based upon an extensive literature review and advice of the execu- tive officers of AICUM), and the pilot test, it was the judgment of the investigator and the professionals in the field that both instru- ments measured those factors necessary to answer the study's research questions. In addition, a detailed examination of the responses of the Michigan presidents in the interviews revealed concurrence with questionnaire responses. Reliability of the instrument. The reliability of survey instru- ments is an exceedingly difficult characteristic to establish because the notion of a "right answer" is conceptually different from the con- cept when applied to objective achievement tests. It is noted, how- ever, that the consistency of responses among respondents in the state of Michigan both to the questionnaire and to the interview questions suggested a notion of test-retest reliability. Even though an exact measure of reliability such as a test-retest reliability coefficient was not computed, the claim is nonetheless made, that the survey instrument did have the quality of reliability. The Interview As noted earlier, the interview represented a secondary research tool for the study to complement and supplement the quantitative data gathered from the questionnaire. The content of the original structured interview guide was developed from relevant literature and from pilot test responses. Two of the five presidents who participated in the pilot test of the questionnaire were interviewed by the investigator to gather additional 66 information for the research project and to provide experience in conducting a research interview. The final interview guide and list of questions (Appendix C) was deve10ped from a revision of the pilot guide and from an analysis of the survey questionnaires (l04) returned by May 10, l980. Appen- dix 0 provides a correlation of interview questions to questionnaire questions. Data-Collection Procedures The Questionnaire The data-collection design for the questionnaire was directed at securing an adequate response rate from the study p0pulation. The investigator was very conscious of the fact that college and uni- versity presidents are inundated with questionnaires/surveys/forms from a variety of sources and that for many colleges and universities late April and early May represent days and evenings of activities associated with the end of the academic year. The basic data-collection plan for the questionnaire consisted of an initial mailing and a follow-up mailing to nonrespondents on the tenth day following the initial return. On April 26, l980. the initial mailing was sent to the presi- dents of the 213 independent colleges and universities in the study population. The mailing to the presidents of the 23 Michigan inde- pendent colleges contained: (l) a two-page individually typed cover letter introducing the investigator and the research study and request- ing their participation in the study through completion of the 67 questionnaire and an interview with the investigator; (2) a copy of the questionnaire; (3) a preaddressed, stamped return envelope; and (4) a form to request a summary of the study results. The mailing to the presidents of the other l90 independent colleges and univer- sities was the same minus the request for an interview. Copies of the original cover letters and request form can be found in Appen- dices E, F, and G. All printed materials in the study used the same type style and were printed professionally. As mentioned earlier, given the time of year and the fact that college and university presidents receive numerous questionnaires, the decision was made to print the question- naire on a light blue paper and black type with the hope that it would secure their attention and response. Two envelopes were used: a l0" x l3" manila mailing envelope containing the cover letter, questionnaire, request form, and a 9" x 12" manila envelOpe addressed and stamped for the return of the questionnaire. All mailings were sent via first-class mail. Each questionnaire was identified with a code number placed in the lower left-hand corner of the back page and matched to a printed list of the institutions in the study population to allow for easy recognition of nonrespondents and for questionnaire identification by state. The initial return was received on April 29, l980, from a Michigan institution. A log of the dates and numbers of returned questionnaires can be found in Appendix H. On May 9, l980, l0 days after the initial return, lOO (47%) completed questionnaires had been 68 returned and four presidents had notified the investigator that time constraints would not permit their participation'hithe study. Thus, the follow-up letter (Appendix G), questionnaire, request form, and a stamped, addressed return envelope were mailed (via first class) to lOl nonreSpondents. Although l09 questionnaires were not as yet returned, the investigator chose not to send follow-up letters to those Michigan presidents she knew (from phone conversations regard- ing interviews) intended to complete and return the questionnaire. Time and financial considerations did not allow for further methods of follow-up of nonrespondents. Questionnaires received as of June 6, 1980, were included in the data analysis. A total of l49 questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 70%. Presidents from 10 institutions notified the investigator of their inability to complete the questionnaire due to pressures of the job, time constraints, and institutional policies regarding participation in research studies. The Interviews As noted earlier, the interview population consisted of the presidents of the 23 Michigan independent colleges and universities in the study population. The cover letter they received (Appendix E) explained the purpose of the interview, asked for their cooperation, and informed them of the investigator's plan to call their office for an interview appointment. To schedule a date, time, and place for the interview, the investigator began contacting the office of each Michigan president 69 by telephone on May 3, l980. 0f the 23 eligible presidents, l7 agreed to be interviewed. Of the six who declined to be interviewed, two stated that they had been in office less than one year and did not feel qualified to give an interview on the subject matter of the study. Of the other four presidents who declined, one felt his insti- tution's enrollment and lack of involvement with state government precluded him from the study. Further conversation revealed that the enrollment figure given in The Education Directory for that particu- lar institution (280) was grossly in error since the institution's total enrollment had been and is less than 50 students. The inves- tigator removed the institution from the study population list, thus reducing the total study p0pulation to 2l2 and the Michigan popula- tion to 22, l0.3% of the total population. When the date, time, and place of the interview had been arranged, a postcard was mailed to each president confirming the interview appointment and restating its purpose. The 17 interviews took place between May l3 and June 5, l980. All of the Michigan presidents permitted the investigator to tape record the interview. All but two of the interviews were held in the campus offices of the interviewees. Because of time constraints and travel schedules, two interviews were conducted in restaurants. Fol- lowing each interview, a letter of appreciation was sent to the interviewee by the investigator. From reactions and comments made by the interviewees, the inves- tigator was able to establish rapport quickly and easily. The average 70 interview length was 40 minutes. Additional post-interview conver- sations resulted in some visits lasting up to two hours. The seemingly candid responses of the interviewees as well as the interest they expressed in the outcomes of the study made the gathering of data through interview a very enriching, enjoyable, and highly informative experience for the investigator. Transcription of the taped interviews by the investigator began on June l6, l980. Coding and Keypunching of Questionnaire Data As the questionnaires were received, the investigator checked them for accuracy of enrollment data and completion of questionnaire items. The date of return was recorded on each questionnaire. Coding of each questionnaire was done by the investigator. A codebook for all questionnaire responses can be found in Appendix I. The coding forms of the l49 questionnaires were taken to the key- punching office of the Michigan State University Computer Center, where all data were keypunched and verified. Data Processing The analysis of questionnaire data was aided by the use of the Michigan State University CDC 750 computer and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al., l975). Data Analyses The data analyzed consisted of the responses from the l49 returned questionnaires and the l7 personal interviews. The interviews 71 were transcribed and analyzed by the investigator. The nature of the research questions provided a variety of ways in which to analyze the questionnaire data. First, comparisons between waves of respondents, i.e., those who responded to the initial mailing compared with those who responded to the follow-up mailing, were made by the use of a Student's trtest. Because this set of comparisons actually uses multiple t:tests, a compounding of a Type I error results. To control for this problem, a technique referred to as the Bonferroni Inequality Technique (Kirk, l968) was employed. This technique translates into dividing the overall alpha level (.05 for this phase of the study) into four parts, one part for each characteristic to be compared. Thus, a significance level of .0l25 (.05/4 = .0l25) was the critical level necessary to discern differences between waves. The computed value of the 3 statistic for this alpha level and this sample size is approximately 2.5. Analysis of the data for the ll questions of the questionnaire was organized in the following manner: Frequencies and percentages for each response to every item of the ll questions were obtained by use of the SPSS subprogram, FREQUENCIES. Missing values were excluded from the calculation of adjusted and cumulative frequencies and from all statistics. Frequency counts for each item in the ques- tionnaire can be found in Appendix J. Where appropriate, percentages will be included in Chapters IV and V. When the frequency counts for individual items in any of the ll questions warranted further expla- nation, additional investigation for sources of difference or 72 similarity were utilized. The null hypotheses were formulated to allow for tests of significant relationships. The SPSS subprogram, CROSSTABS, which yields bivariate frequency distributions, was employed to provide the chi-square statistic to determine whether or not a systematic statistical relationship existed between the two variables in each hypothesis. Missing values were included in the tables but not in the calculation of the statistics. Significance Level for Questionnaire Data According to Wiersma (1975), the significance level or alpha level is the level of probability at which a researcher rejects the null hypothesis being tested. To a certain degree, the choice of alpha level is an arbitrary choice of the investigator depending upon the amount of risk she or he is willing to take in making an error. It was the investigator's decision to set the significance level for the data analysis of questions I through XI at the .l0 level. This decision was made for the following reasons: (1) survey research, especially descriptive research, is not viewed as a highly precise investigative technique; (2) no programs related to independent higher education will be je0pardized by the findings of this study; and (3) this study represents a very generalized approach to the prob- lem under consideration, and the need for a very small significance level did not seem warranted. Given these considerations, the investigator decided it was more important to expose significant dif- ferences than to be absolutely sure that a Type II error was not being committed. 73 However, because individual items within questions I, V, VI, VII, VIII, and XI wenenot clearly independent of one another, the alpha level for the overall experimentwise effectwwasbeing compounded. To control for this, a variation of the Bonferroni Technique men- tioned earlier was used. The alpha levels established for the research hypotheses were as follows: H0] and H02: .lO/l7 = .006 H03 and H04: .lO/l9 = .005 H05, H06, H07, and H08: .lO/l5 = .007 H09: .l0/7 = .014 H010: .l0/4 = .025 This adjustment allowed the error rate associated with the overall alpha level to be a result of the function of the number of compari- sons which were made (Kirk, l968) and insured that the overall alpha level would not be greater than the .10 level. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATA Introduction This chapter contains‘a presentation and analysis of the data gathered from the 149 questionnaires returned as of June 6, l980. Where appropriate, the major findings are presented in statistical, descriptive, and tabular form. Total frequency counts for each item of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix J. The first part of Chapter IV contains an analysis of Wave One (questionnaires received on or before May 14, l980) and Wave Two (questionnaires received after May l4, 1980). The second part of Chapter IV presents a profile of the respon- dents and their institutions. The profile was generated through the use of descriptive information, frequency counts, and percentages. A summary of the major findings for each of the eight research questions as well as an analysis of the 10 hypotheses is presented in the third and fourth sections of Chapter IV. Analysis of Waves One and Two The original letter to the presidents of the study population institutions requested that questionnaires be returned on or before May l2, l980. On May 9, l980, the follow-up letter was mailed. Questionnaires received on or before May l4, l980, were designated 74 75 as Wave One; those received after May l4, l980, through June 6, l980, were designated as Wave Two. A total of 149 questionnaires were returned by June 6, l980, representing 70.28% of the 2l2 institutions in the study p0pulation. Appendix K is a listing of the responding institutions by state location. It is noted that the name of the one responding institu- tion from North Dakota has been omitted to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of responses of that particular respondent. Comparisons between Wave One and Wave Two on the various char- acteristics of interest were made by use of a Student's tytest. Table 4.1 is a presentation of the results of the tftest on the fol- lowing institutional characteristics: enrollment, distance from the capital city of the respective state (mileage), membership in a state organization of independent colleges and universities (association), and tenure of the institution's president (presidential tenure). Because this set of comparisons actually uses multiple tytests, a compounding of a Type I error results. To control for this problem, a technique referred to as the Bonferroni Inequality Technique (Kirk, l968) was employed. This technique translates into dividing an overall alpha level (.05 for this phase of the study) into four parts, one part for each characteristic. Thus, a significance level of .0125 (.05/4 = .0l25) was the critical level necessary to discern differ- ences between the two waves. The computed value of the t_statistic for this alpha level and this sample size is approximately 2.5. An inspection of the tfvalues in Table 4.l revealed no value as large as 2.5. Thus, it wasconcluded that for the purposes of this study 76 and given the evidence collected, the assumption that Wave One and Wave Two didnot differ from each other in their characteristics seemed warranted and the study proceeded accordingly. Table 4.1: thest for Significant Differences Between Waves One and Two by Institutional Characteristics Wave One Wave Two Characteristics Mean (7) Mean (7) tfvalue Enrollment 3.75a 3.41a 2.04 Mileage 2.92b 2.48b 1.60 Association 1.00C .94c 1.44 Presidential tenure 7.36d 5.57d 2.21 aEnrollment category "3" represented 500-999 students. bMileage category "2" represented 51-100 miles. cQuestionnaire item pertaining to state association membership was coded as follows: l = yes, 0 = no. dActual years in office were used for coding presidential tenure. Wave One consisted of 113 respondents and Wave Two consisted of 36 respondents--53% and 17%, respectively, of the total p0pulation. Profile of Respondents Using Selected Factors Personal Profile Education. The educational levels of the responding presidents are presented in Table 4.2. Of the 149 respondents, only 2 did not indicate their highest degree earned. Of the 147 who did, 13 (9%) earned a master's degree, 115 (78%) a doctoral degree, 7 (5%) a pro- fessional degree, and 12 (8%) a doctoral apg_a professional degree. 77 Table 4.2: Frequencies and Percentages of Educational Level of Respondents by Highest Degree Earned Degree Earned f_ % Master's 13 9 Doctoral 115 78 Professional 7 5 Doctoral and professional 12 8 Total 147 lOOa aDue to rounding, column totals in all tables involving per- centages may not equal 100.0 percent. Presidential tenure. Table 4.3 is a presentation of the respon- dents' years in office in their present presidency (presidential tenure). All but one of the 149 respondents answered this item in the questionnaire. Of the 148 who completed the item, the mean tenure (K) for the respondent population was approximately 7 years. Presidential tenure ranged from 1 year or less to 28 years. Those respondents who had been in office 5 or less years accounted for 48% of the respondent population, while those who had been president for 6 to 10 years represented 32% of the respondent p0pu1ation. The remaining 20% of the population, representing 13 individuals, had been in office from 11 to 28 years. Previous experience as a president. Table 4.4 is a presentation of the respondents' previous experiences as a college/university president. All respondents (149) completed this questionnaire item. Of the 149, 125 (84%) had never been a college or university presi- dent prior to their present appointment. Of the 24 respondents (16%) 78 Table 4.3: Frequencies and Percentages of Presidential Tenure by Years in Office Years in Office j_ % l or less 18 12 2 ll 7 3 20 14 4 8 5 5 15 10 6 16 11 7 7 5 8 8 5 9 7 5 10 9 6 ll 2 l 12 4 3 13 5 3 14 3 2 15 4 3 16 2 1 17 3 2 18 1 1 20 1 1 22 1 1 24 1 1 26 1 l 28 l 1 Total 148 100 Note: Mean tenure = 6.939. 79 who had previous presidential experience, 20 had been a president at one other institution, 2 at two other institutions, and 2 at three other institutions. Questionnaire data revealed that of the 30 institutions represented in the respondents' previous presidencies, all but one were independent colleges or universities. Table 4.4: Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Previous Presidential Experience Experience f_ % Previous presidential experience 24 16 No previous presidential experience 125 84 Total 149 100 Institutional Profile Enrollment. Table 4.5 is a presentation of institutional enroll- ment categories by frequencies and percentages as reported by the 149 responding institutions. The enrollment categories are those which are used by the National Center for Education Statistics in Digest of Education Statistics 1979. Of the 149 responding institutions, 88% had enrollments of between 200 and 2,499 students while the remaining 12% ranged in enrollment from 2,500 to 19,999. The mean category of enrollment for respondents was 500-999 while the modal response was l,OOO-2,499. Differences between enrollments cited by respondents and those 80 published in the latest Education Directory, Colleges & Universities, 1978-79 edition, are reflected in Appendix L. Table 4.5: Frequencies and Percentages of Enrollment Categories of Responding Institutions Enrollment Categories f_ % 200- .499 12 8 500- 999 57 38 1,000- 2,499 62 42 2,500- 4,999 8 5 5,000- 9,999 6 l0,000-19,999 4 3 Total 149 100 Association membership. 0f the 149 respondents, all but 5 responded to the questionnaire item regarding present membership in a state association of independent colleges and universities. Of the 144 who completed the item, 142 (99%) stated that their institutions presently weremembers of a state association, while 2 (1%) indicated that their institutions were not members. Mileage. All but 6 of the 149 respondents completed the ques- tionnaire item regarding distance in miles of their institution from the capital city of their respective state. Table 4.6 is a profile of the responses to this item. The mean, median, and mode for the characteristic, "mileage," was 2.8, which represented 51-100 miles. Slightly more than 50% of the responding institutions were between 81 l and 100 miles from their respective state capital and 49% were between 101 and 200+ miles from the state capital. Table 4.6: Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents' Distance From State Capitals by Mileage Categories Mileage Categories f_ % l- 50 31 22 51-100 42 29 101-150 10 7 151-200 41 29 200+ 19 13 Total 143 100 Location. Table 4.7 is a presentation by frequencies and per- centages of the study p0pu1ation and the respondent p0pu1ation by state location. The respondents (149) represented each of the 11 states in Region I. Illinois represented the largest frequency and percentage of the respondents while North Dakota represented the smallest. Table 4.8 is a presentation of the responding population by state location with frequency and percentage of returns for each state. The largest percentage of response for an individual state was Michigan with 86% of return, followed by South Dakota (83%), Minnesota (82%), and Kansas (81%). The smallest percentage of return by state was North Dakota (50%). The average percentage of response for the 11 states was 70.2%. A graph of the frequency of respondents for each state in the study p0pu1ation can be found in Appendix M. 82 Table 4.7: Frequencies and Percentages of Institutions in Study P0pu1ation and Respondent Population by State State Study P0pulation Responding Institutions 1 % _f_ 74 Illinois 44 21 28 19 Indiana 28 13 22 15 Iowa 25 12 14 9 Kansas 16 8 13 9 Michigan 22 10 19 13 Minnesota 17 8 l4 9 Missouri 24 ll 13 9 Nebraska 10 5 6 4 North Dakota 2 l 1 1 South Dakota 6 3 5 3 Wisconsin 18 8 14 9 Total 212 100 149 100 aPercentages are based on the N_of the corresponding population, 212 and 149, respectively. Table 4.8: Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents per State by State State 5. ReSpondents i %a Illinois 44 28 64 Indiana 28 22 79 Iowa 25 14 56 Kansas 16 13 81 Michigan 22 19 86 Minnesota 17 14 82 Missouri 24 13 54 Nebraska 10 6 60 North Dakota 2 1 50 South Dakota 6 5 83 Wisconsin 18 14 78 Total 212 149 aPercentages are based on the N_for each state in the study p0pu1ation. 83 Major Findings of the Questionnaire Data Introduction As noted earlier, 149 institutions (70% of the study population) responded to the survey questionnaire. Given the position of the respondents (college and university presidents) and the time of year, the investigator was very satisfied with the percentage of return. According to Babbie (1973), "a response rate of 70 percent or more is very good" for analysis and reporting (p. 165). The major findings of the survey questionnaire are reported according to the order of the 11 questions in the questionnaire. As noted in the Introduction to Chapter IV, numerical frequency counts for each item and response category can be found in Appendix J. Where appr0priate, percentages will be provided with the major findings. Question I--Research Question 1 In Question I of the survey questionnaire, reSpondents were asked to indicate the degree of importance of a select group of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of the independent sggtp[_of higher education to state governments. The content of items 9_ through g_represented a rather broad coverage of factors. Responses to question I revealed minimal variance of opinion among respondents except for factors I-c, I-h, and I-l. More than 90% of all responses to 12 of the 17 factors were found in the "essential" and "important" categories. Of the remaining five factors, more than 70% of all the responses were found in those same categories. 84 Of the 17 factors listed, the ones which were specified most often by the respondents as "essential" were: I-b. the Governor's position on state aid to independent higher education (62%) I-d. the merits of the issue contained in a particular bill which relates to independent higher education (57%) I-f. the effectiveness of the state association of independent colleges and universities (72%) It is noted that all but one of 149 respondents responded to factor I-f (noted above). All responses (100%) to this factor were either in the response category "essential" (72%) or the category "important" (28%). Of the 17 factors, the following were Specified as "importan " by more than 100 of the 149 respondents: I-h. personalities of the residents of the independent colleges and universities (70%) I-i. the percent of state students enrolled in independent colleges/universities (73%) I-m. responsiveness of independent colleges/universities in meeting needs and requests of individual legislators or the Governor (68%) I-p. the relationship between public higher education and inde- pendent higher education in the state (76%) The following additional factors were perceived as "important" by at least half of the respondents: I-c. the state Constitution (52%) I-g. Legislators' personal philosophy about state aid to inde- pendent institutions and their students (52%) I-j. independent sector's provision of service to citizens of the state (66%) Of the remaining seven factors, the modal response was "impor- tant" except for I-a, "understanding of the state's political pro- cesses by presidents of the independent colleges/universities." 85 Those responses were almost split in half since 76 (51%) perceived I-a as "essential" and 71 (48%) perceived it as "important." The factors rated most often as "unimportant" were: I—c. the state Constitution (16%) I-e. number of independent colleges and universities in the state (12%) I-h. personalities of the presidents of the independent colleges/ universities (15%) I-l. extent to which a vote for independent higher education will help or hurt a legislator in the next election (16%) Of the 17 factors, 8 had responses in the category "irrelevant"; of those 8, 4 had a frequency of 1. The highest frequency in the category "irrelevant" was 10, and that was for factor I-h, "personali- ties of the presidents of the independent colleges/universities." Question II--Research Question 5 The purpose of question II was to determine those elected state government officials on whom the independent colleges and universi- ties focused their attention during any given year. Provision was made for respondents to indicate that they "do not actively relate to elected state government officials" (II-i), if such was the case. Question 11 seemed to pose a problem for some respondents inasmuch as 30 of the 147 respondents to question 11 checked their responses as opposed to ranking them as the question directed them. In order to take advantage of g11_responses, a simple frequency count was made to identify the mpgal_responses. Accordingly, the three responses receiving the highest frequeppy counts with no necessary order implied were: 86 II-b. state legislators from your institution's district II-d. state legislators who are members of a legislative com- mittee which discusses education and/or higher education II-g. state legislators who are members of a legislative com- mittee which discusses appropriations to higher education It is noted that the modal responses coincided with the ranking by those 117 (87%) respondents who followed the directions for ques- tion 11 as they were stated. The state officials receiving the lowest frequency counts were: II-f. those legislators who, though not elected to formal leadership within the Legislature, are leaders by virtue of their personal influence within the Legislature II-e. state legislators who consistently vote in favor of inde- pendent higher education issues II-h. other state officials Of the 12 respondents who chose II-h, "another state official," 5 were from Illinois, and 3 of the 5 listed the Illinois Board of Higher Education. Of the 147 respondents to question II, 16 (11%) indicated that they "do not actively relate to elected state government officials" (II-i). The 16 respondents represented 7 of the 11 states, with Missouri having the highest state representation, namely, 6 of the 16 (38%). The other six states were: Illinois (2), Indiana (1), Michigan (2), Minnesota (1), Nebraska (2), and Wisconsin (2). Of the 16 institutions, half are defined by The Education Directonyp Colleges & Universities 1978-79 edition as independent nonprofit and half as church affiliated. Of the eight church-affiliated institu- tions, six were located in Missouri. 87 Question III--Research Question 5 Question 111 was intended to elicit from the respondents the types of approaches (direct or indirect) they used when relating to elected state government officials, and the use of support groups (faculty, students, Trustees). Respondents were asked "how often" (always, occasionally, rarely, never) they expressed their views directly to state government officials. When an issue will have an impact on independent higher educa- tion (III-a), the modal response was "occasionally," with 91 (61%) of the 149 respondents choosing this category. When an issue will have an impact "on our institution" (III-b), an equal number of respondents (91 [61%]) chose "always? as their response. Items III-c and III-d related to the use of support groups by presidents under the same conditions mentioned in III-a and III-b. The modal response for III-c and III-d was the same--support groups are used "occasionally." The frequency count for III-c and III-d was 87 or 59% of the respondents. When an issue will have an impact on the sggtpr, 48 (33%) of the respondents "rarely" enlisted the support of others and 4 (3%) "never" enlisted support. When an issue will have an impact on an individual institution, 36 (24%) "rarely" enlisted the support of others, while 2 (1%) "never" sought the assistance of others. The two remaining items in question III dealt with the rela- tionship of the respondents to their respective state association of independent colleges and universities. Of the 149 respondents, 140 (94%) indicated that they "always" expected the staff of the 88 state association to know and to represent the views of the inde- pendent sector (III-e). The remaining nine respondents (6%) chose the response "occasionally." When a particular issue was under consideration, the respondents were divided equally in their responses in two of the four response categories. Of the 149 respondents, 65 (44%) said they "always" expressed their views to the state association and 65 (44%) "occa- sionally" expressed their views. Question IV--Research Question 5 In Question IV, respondents were asked to rank the top three officials or organizations which influenced the positions and actions taken by their respective institutions in state public policy matters. As indicated earlier with reference to question 11, some of the respondents did not rank their responses. Regarding question IV, 122 (82%) of the respondents ranked their responses while 27 (18%) checked their responses. A simple frequency count was made to iden- tify the modal responses for all respondents. Accordingly, the three responses receiving the highest freguency counts with no necessary order implied were as follows: IV-a. the executive administrators of the institution IV—e. the institution's Board of Trustees IV-f. the state association of independent colleges and universities It is noted that modal responses to question IV coincided with the ranking by those 122 (82%) respondents who followed the directions to question IV as they were stated. 89 The individuals/organizations which received the lowest overall frequency counts were: IV-c. the students IV-d. the alumni of the institution IV-j. others Question V--Research Question 2 In Question V, reSpondents were asked to rate the importance of selected factors in terms of their effect on the relationship of an individual independent college or university to state government officials. A five-point Likert scale (Oppenheim, 1966) was used: Very unimportant Do not know 4 = Very important 3 = Important 2 = Unimportant 1: o = Responses to question V revealed variances of opinion among respondents except for V-q, "membership in the state association of independent colleges and universities." Of the 149 respondents, all_ answered V-q and 88 (59%) specified the factor as "very important" and 58 (39%) specified it as " mportan ." Only 2 of the 149 respon- dents perceived V—q as "unimportant," and l respondent "did not know" its effect on the relationship of an individual independent college/ university to state government officials. By combining the response categories "very important" and "important," the following factors yielded percentages of more than 70%: V-a. independent status of the institution (87%) V-c. the institution's reliance on state aid to students 81% 9O V-f. people who influence the institution's position in public policy matters (80%) V-h. personal relationships with the Governor or state legis- lators (89%) V-j. the president's personality (78%) V-1. people who advise the president on public policy matters 74% V-0. forms of communication used by the president in relating to state government officials (79%) V-p. meetings/seminars/conferences attended by the president which address political/public policy matters (71%) The following factors were perceived as unimportant when the response categories "unimportant" and "very unimportant" were com- bined: V-b. the institution's proximity to the state Capital (80%) V-i. the president's academic preparation and background (52%) V-m. the president's previous experience as president of another college/university (58%) V-n. the president's previous nonacademic work experience (65%) Several items of question V revealed a variance of opinion among respondents, with almost an equal number of respondents perceiving a factor as "important" as "unimportant," e.g., factor V-e(2), "church related or non-church related; V-d, "the institution's reliance on federal monies"; and V-i, "the president's academic preparation and background." Factor V-e addressed the Specific nature of the institution as a factor affecting the relationship of an individual independent college/university to elected state government officials. Specific nature was defined as follows: (1) college or university, (2) church related or non-church related, and (3) enrollment size. A variety of responses were reflected with respect to the importance of an 91 institution as either "church related or non-church related." Table 4.9 is a presentation of responses to that particular item. Of the 139 respondents, an almost equal number perceived the factor as "important" as "unimportant." Combining responses to the cate- gories "very important" and "important" yielded a frequency (68) almost equal to the frequency of combining the "unimportant" and "very unimportant" responses (64). Table 4.9: Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Importance of Question V-e(2): Nature of Institution (Church Related or Non-church Related) Responses f_ % Very important 15 11 Important 53 38 Unimportant 57 41 Very unimportant 7 5 Do not know 7 5 Total 139 100 In an effort to investigate the responses to question V-e: "church related or non-church related," the investigator classified the respondents by institutional control as reported in The Education Directory, Colleges & Universities, 1978-79 edition. Table 4.10 is a presentation of responses to question V-e(2): "church related or non-church related" by institutional control. Of the 139 reSpondents to the question, 37 (27%) were indepen- dent nonprofit institutions and 102 (73%) were church affiliated. Of 92 .eoeueue me-mem_ .meeuemeesees a mommppou .aLOpume_o copumuaum mgh soew umcwmuao mm: cowumsgoecw Poeucou chovpauvumcmm n m m m om Km me me NF NP umum___wwm sugacu o 0 pp V cm om mm op m m uwmogaco: ucmucmqmucH a .w a .w e w. e m. a .m ucmueogswcz pcmueoae socx poz oo aem> acmugoaswcz ucmueoaeH aem> H Fosucou cho_u=uvumcH mmmeommumu mmcoammm mFoeucou Pocowuappumcfi mo maxh xn Aumucpmm gogzcuucoz so umumpmm sugacuv cowuzupumcm we mgzumz ”Amvmi> cowummso mo mucmugoasH o» mmmcoammm we mummucmuemm use mmwucmacmgm ”0—.e wpnmh 93 the 37 independent nonppofit institutions, 65% considered the factor of church affiliation or independent status as "unimportant" and "very unimportant." Of the 102 church-affiliated respondents, 39% perceived the same factor to be "unimportant" and “very unimportant." While 42% of the church-affiliated respondents perceived the factor to be important, 36% perceived it to be unimportant. Nppe: The investigator alerts the reader to the fact that perhaps "control" information reported in the Education Directony cited above may not be a reasonable or useful descriptor to discrimi- nate in depth on this matter. Institutions personally known to the investigator (and to others) to be church-affiliated by foundation and current philosophy and practices are listed in the Directory as independent nonprofit, e.g., Mundelein College, Illinois; H0pe College, Michigan; University of Detroit, Michigan; Creighton University, Nebraska; and Trinity Christian College, Illinois. The choice of descriptor is made by the individual institution according to the following options given by the Directory: independent nonprofit organized for profit affiliated with a religious group (affiliation does not imply financial support) Responses to question V-d also revealed a difference of opinion among respondents as to the importance of an institution's reliance on federal monies as a factor which may or may not affect the insti- tution's relationship to its state government. Table 4.11 is a pre- sentation of responses to V-d. Although more respondents perceived the factor as "very important" and "important" than "unimportant," 94 an almost equal number of respondents perceived it as "important" (55) as "unimportant" (52). Table 4.11: Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Question V-d: Importance of an Institution's Reliance on Federal Monies Response f_ % Very important 20 14 Important 55 38 Unimportant 52 36 Very unimportant 9 6 Do not know 7 5 Total 143 100 Responses to factor V-i, "the president's academic preparation and background," also showed an almost equal split of responses as reflected in Table 4.12. Of the 149 respondents, all but 3 completed the item. Of the 146, 62 (43%) perceived factor V-i as "very impor- tant" and "important," whereas 67 (46%) perceived it as "unimportant." Table 4.12: Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Question V-i: Importance of President's Academic Preparation and Back- ground Response f_ % Very important 7 5 Important 55 38 Unimportant 67 46 Very unimportant ll 8 Do not know 6 4 Total 146 100 95 Of the 17 factors presented in question V, factors m and n elicited the highest number of "do not know" responses regarding their degree of importance. Factor V-m, "the president's previous experience as president," had 20 (14%) "do not know" responses, while V—n, "the president's nonacademic work experience," had 19 (13%) such responses. Question VI--Research Question 6 The purpose of question VI was to designate the forms of com- munication preferred by the respondents when they communicated directly with state government officials regarding the impact of pending legislation on independent higher education. Respondents were directed to indicate the eye form of communication they used in the majority of instances when they communicated with the Governor, the 1egislator(s) from their institution's district, key legislators related to an issue, and other state legislators. The responses to question VI indicated that personal letter was the preferred form of communication for communicating with the Governor, key legislators related to an issue, and other legis- lators. When communicating with the legislator from the institu- tion's district, respondents showed a greater variety of responses as indicated in Table 4.13. The frequency of responses revealed that respondents preferred "telephone call" and "personal letter" followed by an “invitation to lunch or dinner." Question VI provided respondents with an opportunity pet to Specify a form of communication and to choose the statement "I do not 96 communicate directly with this individual.‘I Of the 149 respondents, 19 (13%) chose this statement when referring to the Governor and 31 (21%) when referring to "other legislators." Table 4.13: Frequencies and Percentages of Forms of Communication Used With District Legislators Form of Communication f_ % Telephone call 53 37 Personal letter 49 35 Visit to office 17 12 Invitation to lunch/dinner 22 15 Question VII--Research Question 5 Question VII was aimed at determining how often (always, occa- sionally, rarely, never) the respondents made use of support groups in their efforts to make state government officials aware of the effects of an issue on either their institution or independent higher education. Table 4.14 is a presentation of responses by frequencies and percentages for each of seven support groups. The modal response for use of administrators, faculty or staff, alumni, trustees, and civic/corporate/business leaders was "occa- sionally," while the modal response for use of students and religious/ church leaders was "rarely." An almost equal number and percentage of respondents "always" and "occasionally" enlisted the support of faculty or staff as those who "rarely" and "never" enlisted their support. 97 mm we oe om mm mm N m memummp gue=;U\maowme—mm mgoummp mp mp mm Ne mm NB 5 o mmmcwman\mpmgoagou\uw>wu m m m m_ Fm cop up mm mmmpmssh o_ m_ mm mm om mu _ p _:E:_< mp mm cw on em Pm m e mucmnaum m m— we we we mm c m ewmpm Lo xupaumd m m o_ «N mm mu mm Ne mgoumgumwcwau< a w. N H a w e H Lm>mz xpmgmm xppmcowmmouo mxmz_< mqaogu ueoaazm mwweommpmo mmcoammm mazoew usoaqzm mo mm: .mucmucoammm mo mmmmwcmoema vcm mmwucmacmgm "¢_.v mpamh 98 The group cited most often in the response category "always" was the administrators of the institution. The group cited most often in the "never" category was religious/church leaders. Question VIII-—Research Question 3 The purpose of question VIII was to ascertain how often indi- vidual independent colleges and universities used a select group of 15 methods or tactics as part of their effort to relate to elected state government officials. The frequency categories for question VIII were: 4. Regularly 3. Occasionally 2. Rarely 1. Never The one method used most "regularly" by the respondents was VIII-c, "providing information about one's institution to elected state government officials." The modal response for the total group of methods was "occa- sionally." The following activities received the highest frequency counts in that reSponse category: VIII-b. invite elected state government officials to: Speak to student groups/classes (61%), give a Commencement address (55%) VIII—c. provide information about your institution to elected state government officials (54%) VIII-d. make suggestions to state government officials regard- ing possible legislation to solve problems particular to independent higher education (62%) VIII-e. inform elected state government officials of the effects on your institution of: (1) existing state laws (53%), (3) of the Governor's proposed education budget (49%), (2) of existing state regulations (57%) 99 VIII-i. ask elected state government officials to be present at significant campus events or celebrations (62%) Combining percentages of responses in the "rarely" and "never" categories yielded percentages of more than 50% for the following methods: VIII-a. attend legislative committee meetings (73%) VIII-b. invite elected state government officials to: (1) address alumni groups (66%) and (4) address pro- fessional groups of educators (55%) VIII-g. extend personal favors to elected state government officials, to their families, and/or staff (88%) VIII-h. ask elected state government officials to be present at Commencements (58%) VIII-j. award an honorary degree to elected state government officials (66%) The method receiving the highest frequency count (89) in the response category "never" was VIII-g, "extending personal favors. .. ." The second highest frequency count for that category (60) was VIII-j, "awarding an honorary degree. .. ." Responses to question VIII-f ("sponsoring a social gathering for elected state government officials") revealed that the respondents were split down the middle of the response categories. Table 4.15 is a presentation of the responses. An almost equal percentage of respondents engaged in the activity "regularly" and "occasionally" (49%) as those who "rarely" and "never" (51%) sponsored a social gathering for elected state government officials. Of the 15 methods or tactics presented in question VIII, 4 elicited responses in §_of the 4 response categories: VIII-c, "pro- viding information about your institution. .. ." elicited no responses in the "never" category, while VIII-b(l), "inviting elected officials 100 to address alumni groups," VIII-g, "extending personal favors. . .," and VIII-j, "awarding an honorary degree. . . ," elicited none in the "regularly" reSponse categOCY- Table 4.15: Frequencies and Percentages of Responses to Question VIII-f: How Often Respondents Sponsor Social Gatherings for State Government Officials Responses j_ % Regularly 15 10 Occasionally 57 39 Rarely 45 30 Never 31 21 Total 148 100 Question IX--Research Question 8 Question IX asked respondents to choose from a list of publica- tions those which provided them with helpful information as they attempt to maintain working relationships with the Governor and state legislators. Respondents were also given an opportunity to choose the statement, "I do not actively relate to elected state government officials." The publications receiving the highest freguency counts and percentages of responses were: IX-c. The Chronicle of Higher Education (88%) IX-d. publications/bulletins from the state association of independent colleges and universities (85%) Less than 50% of the respondents chose the following publi- cations: 101 IX-j. CASC publications (44%) IX-i. publications/bulletins from state government agencies 34% IX-g. publications/newsletters from state legislators to constituents (31%) IX-a. publications/bulletins from the Education Commission of the States (30%) IX-b. Chepge_magazine (28%) Publications from the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Association of Governing Board Reports were selected by 54% and 52%, respectively, of the respondents. Of the 149 respondents, 11 specified "other" publications, and of the 11, 7 respondents listed bulletins from the National Associa- tion of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU). As noted earlier, question IX-l gave respondents the Opportunity to choose the statement, "We do not actively relate. . . .“ Of the respondents, only three (2%) chose the statement, and of the three, only one chose the statement and did not choose any publications. Question X--Research Questions 3 and 7 In question X the respondents were asked to rank the tOp three individuals who provided them with the most helpful advice for their relationships with elected state government officials. As in questions II and IX, provision was made for respondents to indicate that they "do not actively relate to elected state government officials." And, again, as noted in questions II and IV, question X seemed to pose a problem for some respondents inasmuch as 37 of the 149 respondents (25%) checked their responses as opposed to ranking them as specified in the directions. Accordingly, a simple frequency 102 count was made to identify the modal responses and to take advantage of all responses. The three individuals receiving the highest fre- quency counts with no necessary order implied were: X-a. an independent college/university president from your state X-b. a member of the state Legislature X-f. the staff of the state association of independent colleges and universities It is noted that the modal responses coincided with the ranking by the 112 (75%) respondents who followed the directions for question X as they were stated. The individuals receiving the lowest frequency counts for ques- tion X were: X-e. a president of a publicly supported college/university within your state X-g. alumni X-i. corporate/business/civic leader(s) X-j. a member of a state government agency As noted earlier, provision was made for respondents to make the statement, "We do not actively relate. . . ." Of the 149 respondents, 4 (3%) chose the statement. Question XI--Research Question 4 The purpose of question XI was to determine the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of the same groups of methods or tactics listed in question VIII in influencing the voting patterns of elected state government officials. A Likert scale for degrees of effectiveness was used: 103 Very effective Effective Ineffective Very ineffective Do not know 0"wa II II II II II Of all the questions in the questionnaire, question XI elicited the highest number of responses in the "do not know" response cate- gory. More than 20% of the responses to 10 of the 15 methods/tactics were found in that category. Mpgel responses by frequency and per- centage for the following three methods were "do not know": XI-g. extending personal favors to elected state government officials (f_= 67; 46%) XI-h. asking elected state government officials to be present at Commencements (f_= 50; 34%) XI-j. awarding an honorary degree to elected state government officials (j_= 57; 40%) All but 2 of the 15 methods had reSponses in the five response categories. The response, "very ineffective,‘ was not chosen by any respondent to the following methods: XI-c. providing information about your institution to elected state government officials XI-d. making suggestions to state government officials regard- ing possible legislation. . . . The most effective tactics as indicated by combining the fre- quencies and percentages of responses in the categories "very effec- tive" and "effective" were as follows: XI-c. providing information about your institution to elected state government officials (84%) XI-d. making suggestions to state government officials regarding possible legislation to solve problems particular to inde- pendent higher education (85%) XI-e. informing elected state government officials of the effects on your institution of: (1) existing state laws (81%) 104 (2) existing state regulations (83%) (3) the Governor's proposed education budget (79%) The following additional methods/tactics were perceived as effective by 50% or more of the respondents when the categories "very effective" and "effective" were combined: were more XI-a. attending legislative committee meetings (56%) XI-f. Sponsoring a social gathering for elected state govern- ment officials (51%) XI-i. asking elected state government officials to be present at significant campus events or celebrations (58%) It is further noted that when the above-named reSponse categories combined, the following additional methods were perceived as effective than ineffective: were were: XI-b. inviting elected state government officials to: (2) speak to student groups/classes (3) give a Commencement address (4) address professional groups of educators When the response categories "ineffective" and "very ineffective" combined, the methods/tactics most often perceived as ineffective XI-b. inviting elected state government officials to: (1) address alumni groups (35%) XI—g. extending personal favors to elected state government officials (37%) XI-h. asking elected state government officials to be present at Commencements (39%) The respondents' perceptions of degrees of effectiveness for two methods/tactics revealed differences of opinion which split the group almost down the middle of the response categories. Table 4.16 is a presentation of responses for XI-b(l) and XI-j. An almost equal num- ber of respondents perceived "inviting . . . officials to address 105 mpmwuwmwo “cmscem>om macaw oq mm m m mm mm mm Fe v o umuum—m on mmemmv zemeoco; cm mcvugmz< nuHx maaogm wcsapm mmmeuum op mFmPuweeo ucmscgm>om RN cc m m NM NV mm mm P P mumum Umuumpm onwuw>CH A_vn-Hx e m. e .m N .w e .w e .H m>euummwmcH w>wuumw$m 302x uoz on w>wuum$mmcH m>wpum%wm xsm> >Lm> uwuomh\uo;pmz mmmcw>wuum$wm mo mmmemmo m-Hx nee A_Va-Hx noses: eo mmmcm>wuumeem mo mcowuqmuema .mucmvcoammm mo mmmmucwuema new mmwucmscmgm "cp.¢ m_amh 106 alumni groups" to be effective ("very effective" plus "effective”) as ineffective ("ineffective" plus "very ineffective"). More than 25% of the respondents "did not know" the effectiveness or ineffec- tiveness of that activity. An equal percentage of respondents per- ceived "awarding an honorary degree. . . ." to be effective as ineffective ("ineffective" plus "very ineffective"), while 40% of the respondents "did not know" how to rate the effectiveness or ineffec- tiveness of that tactic. Summary In the preceding section of Chapter IV, data from questionnaire responses were presented. A summary of the major findings relative to the study's research questions, as stated in Chapter III, follows: 1. All of the 17 factors presented in question I of the question- naire were perceived by the respondents to have some bearing on the relationship of the independent sector of higher education to state government. The factors perceived as most essential were: the effec- tiveness of the state association, the Governor's position on state aid to students, and the merits of the issue contained in a particular bill. The factors most important to the relationship were: the rela- tionship between the independent and the public sectors, responsive- ness of colleges/universities to the needs and requests of the Governor or legislators, the personalities of the independent presidents, and the percentage of state students enrolled in independent colleges/ universities. 107 2. Respondents' perceptions of the importance of 19 selected factors on the relationship of an individual independent college/ university to its respective state government revealed some variance of opinion except for the clear importance of the state association. Other important factors were: --the independent status of the institution --the institution's reliance on state aid to students --people who influence the institution's public policy stance or advise the president --personal relationships with the Governor or state legislators --the president's personality --forms of communication used by the President in relating to state government officials --meetings/seminars/conferences attended by the president which address political matters The most unimportant factors were: -—the institution's proximity to the state capital --the president's previous nonacademic work experience and pre- vious experience as president Respondents' perceptions of three factors were split between "important" and "unimportant": --the institution's reliance on federal monies --the president's academic background and preparation --the specific nature of an institution, specifically, its church affiliation or non-church affiliation 108 3. The method of interaction used most often by the respondents in their relationships with state government officials was that of providing information about one's institution to the officials. Methods used occasionally were: I -—inviting state Officials to speak to student groups or classes, to give a Commencement address, or to be present at significant campus events or celebrations --making suggestions to elected officials regarding possible legislation to solve problems particular to the independent sector --informing elected officials of the effects on one's institution of existing state laws and regulations, and the Governor's proposed education budget The respondents reported that they rarely or never used the following methods of relating to state officials: --extending personal favors --attending legislative committee meetings --awarding an honorary degree to state officials --asking state officials to be present at Commencements --inviting officials to address alumni groups or professional educator groups While almost half of the respondents indicated that they regularly or occasionally sponsored a social gathering for state officials, the other half indicated that they rarely or never engaged in such an activity. 109 4. In question XI of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of the same group of selected tac- tics stated in question VIII in influencing the voting patterns of elected state government officials. The most effective tactics were related to communications from educators to state officials: —-providing information about one's institution to state officials --making suggestions to state officials regarding possible legis- lation to solve problems particular to independent higher edu- cation --informing state officials of the effect on one's institution of existing state laws and regulations, and the Governor's prOposed education budget Invitations to state government officials to speak to student groups/classes, to give a Commencement address, to address profes- sional groups of educators, or to be present at significant campus events or celebrations were perceived more often as effective than ineffective. Responses to the perceptions of the effectiveness of two tactics were almost divided equally between "effective" and "ineffective": --inviting state officials to address alumni groups --asking state Officials to be present at Commencements Of the 11 questions in the questionnaire, question XI elicited the highest number of responses in the "do not know" response cate- gory. The tactic receiving the highest frequency and percentage of 110 response for that category was "extending personal favors to elected state government officials." 5. The key participants in the relationship between independent colleges and universities were: the state officials with whom the institutions relate, namely, the legislators from the institution's district and the members of the legislative Education/Higher Education and Appropriations Committees; and the individuals who influence the positions and actions taken by the institutions in state public policy matters, namely, the executive administrators of the institution, the Board of Trustees, and the state association of independent colleges and universities. When support groups were enlisted to lend support on a state public policy issue affecting the sector or an institution, the respondents indicated that they occasionally asked administrators, faculty or staff, alumni, trustees, and civic, corporate, or business leaders. Students and religious or church leaders were [egely_asked to lend support. 6. Regarding preferred forms of communication, the respondents indicated that they preferred to write a personal letter when commu— nicating with the Governor, key legislators related to an issue, and other legislators. When communicating with their district legislator, they preferred telephone calls and personal letters. 7. For their relationships with elected state government offi- cials, the respondents indicated that the most helpful advice they received came from three sources: --another independent college or university president within the state 111 --a member of the state legislature --the staff of the state association of independent colleges and universities 8. The Chronicle of Higher Education and publications from the state association of independent colleges and universities were the publications most frequently cited by the respondents for providing them with helpful information for their relationships with the Governor and state legislators. Results of Testing of Hypotheses As stated in Chapter III, 10 research hypotheses were formulated to provide additional information related to questions I, V, VI, VII, VIII, and X1 in the questionnaire. A correlation of the hypotheses to the research questions of the study and to the applicable question- naire questions can be found in Appendix N. As noted at the end of Chapter 111, an alpha level was set for each of the null hypotheses using the Bonferroni Inequality Technique so as not to compound the overall alpha level. The SPSS subprogram, CROSSTABS, was used to provide the chi-square statistic, appropriate degrees of freedom, and levels of significance for each hypothesis tested. Hypotheses l and 2 HO]: There is no significant relationship between respondents' "“ state location and their perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of the independent sector of higher education to state governments in Region I Of NAICU. 112 H02: There is no significant relationship between presidential tenure and the reSpondentS' perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of the independent sector of higher education to state govern- ments in Region I of NAICU. As noted in Chapter III, when responses to questions I, VI, VIII, and X1 in the questionnaire covered the range of response categories, further analyses by Specified independent variables would be pursued. Since responses to question I revealed a high degree of unanimity and homogeneity to all but 3 of the 17 factors, analyses to identify a relationship to the independent variables, "state location" and "presi- dential tenure," were deemed unnecessary and meaningless by the inves- tigator. Responses to items I-c, I-h, and I-l revealed a small vari- ance of opinion (as noted earlier in this chapter) but not of suffi- cient magnitude to warrant further investigation among states or tenure categories. Accordingly, for the purposes of this study, the null hypotheses for question I were tenable. Hypothesis 3 H03: There is no significant relationship between respondents' "" state location and their perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of an individual independent college or university to its respec- tive state government in Region I of NAICU. Hypothesis 3 was formulated to test whether a systematic, statis- tical relationship existed between the independent variable, "state location," and the respondents' perceptions of the degrees of impor- tance of each of a select group of 19 factors (presented in Question V) in affecting the relationship of an individual independent college or university to elected state government officials. 113 The level of significance for each of the 19 tests was set at .005 (using the Bonferroni Technique). Table 4.17 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of freedom, level of significance, and number of respondents for each of the 19 factors tested by state location. Given the evi- dence presented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 4.17: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 3 Question V: a 2b c . d Factors 9- X 9f, 519’ a 147 33.11 30 .3179 b 148 39.25 40 .5036 C 148 81.74 40 .0001 d 143 62.68 40 .0124 e(1) 144 69.82 40 .0024 (2) 139 47.19 40 .2023 (3) 139 69.87 40 .0024 f 145 40.96 40 .4281 g 145 100.60 40 .0000 h 146 42.49 40 .3644 i 146 53.20 40 .0790 j 148 66.24 40 .0056 k 147 64.39 40 .0086 1 144 73.13 40 .0011 m 145 45.33 40 .2593 n 146 63.34 40 .0108 O 146 59.62 40 .0236 p 148 64.46 40 .0084 q 149 40.50 30 .0956 aNumber of respondents. bObtained raw chi-square value. cDegrees of freedom. dObtained significance level. 114 It is noted that significance levels of .005 and less were obtained for the following five factors in question V, indicating statistically significant relationships to respondents' state location: V-c. the institution's reliance on state aid to students V-e. the specific nature of the institution (1) college or university and V-e. (3) enrollment Size V-g. political literature or information read by the president V-l. peOple who advise the president on public policy matters Tables 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22 are crosstabulation presentations of the frequencies and percentages of respondents' per- ceptions of the importance of the above-named factors by their respec- tive state location. Table 4.18 is a crosstabulation presentation of responses to the importance of an institution's reliance on state aid to students (V-c) by state location. Frequencies and percentages of responses for each response category are shown by state. The obtained raw chi-square was 81.74 with 40 degrees of freedom at the .001 level of significance. Respondents in 7 of the 11 states perceived an institution's reliance on state aid to be important. Combining the percentages of respondents in the categories "very important" and "important" yielded a percentage of 75 or more for respondents in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. It is noted that all of the Wisconsin responses were found in the two categories just men- tioned--SO% in each category. 115 :11. .eueum Lee muceeceemee we Le353: exp :e eemen managemeeee 3e; mew mpeum an meeceeemewe mcwampemwe mepeeu ppm Lee memeuceeeeee 88. u m S n H. 3.5 u ex .32 m o m_ mm mm mpeueu cszpeu o o o o o o o.om N o.om N cwmceemwz o.oN P o.ON p o o o.o¢ N o.oN _ meexmo zuzem o o o.oo_ _ o o o o o o muexeo :peez o o o.om m N.cp P m.mm N o o mxmmenez o o o o ¢.mp N N.mo m «.mp N Pesemmwz o o o o e._N m e.FN m F.Nm m euemmccwz m.op N m.m — m.mp m m.om N o.pm m cmmwgewz N.N F o o N.N P N.e¢ m m.mm m mmmcex o o o o p.N _ ~.Nm m N.mm m ezeH m.¢ _ o o o.mp e c.~¢ op c.mN o ecmwecH o o o o N.op m m.Nv NP e.m¢ mp mwecpppm e H e w e H e H N .e. zecx eoz on ucmuwmm”wca aceueeeewca eceueeeEH uceWHMMEH mumpm meweemmumu emceemem mpceeaem eu ee< meeum ce eecewpem m.:ewu:uwum:~ an we eeceueeeeH Hei> eu epeum Ne memceemem ee ememeuceegma use mopecmeeeeu ”m_.e e—amh 116 Michigan respondents were the only ones whose responses covered the range of five response categories, and their perceptions of the importance of the factor were not as high as the seven states men- tioned above. Combining the percentages in the categories "very unimportant" and "unimportant" yielded a percentage of 66.7 for Nebraska's respon- dents. The North Dakota respondent perceived the factor as "very unimportant," while the respondents from South Dakota reflected a variance of Opinion. Of the five South Dakota respondents, 60% perceived the factor to be important (20% = "very important" and 40% = "important"), 20% "very unimportant," and 20% of the respon- dents "did not know" the importance of V—c as a factor affecting the relationship of an individual college or university to state govern- ment officials. Table 4.19 is a crosstabulation presentation of respondents' perceptions of the importance of the specific nature of an institu- tion, specifically its classification as either a college or a uni- versity (V-3[1]), by state location. The obtained raw chi-square was 69.82 with 40 degrees of freedom at the .0024 significance level. Most of the reSpondents' perceptions of the importance of item V-3(l) revealed a range of opinion. However, 92.3% of the Kansas respondents clearly perceived the factor as important: 76.9% per- ceived it as "important" and 15.4% as "very important.“ Combining the response categories "very important" and "impor- tant" revealed that more than 60% of the responses from respondents 117 eNoo. u.m oe u Nw.me n «x .oeoz m a me we «F mquou :EaFeu o o o o F.Fm w w.mm m F.F F ccheesz o o o o o.oe m o.ON F o.oN F mpexeo gezem o.ooF F o o o o o o o o muexeo zueez o o F.0F F F.0F F F.oo e o o mxmmeeez F.F F ¢.mF N F.w F m.Fc m F.F F Fgaemmwz m.w F m.m F F.Fc m F.oF N o.mN m epemmccwz m.m F m.m F m.e~ m m.Fm FF m.m F camFeon o o N.F F o o m.oF oF «.mF N mmmcex o o F.F F F.mm m F.Fm m o o mzeF o.m F o o o.oo NF 0.0m o o.m F eceFecF o o e.w N m.mm o e.¢¢ NF m.¢F e mwecFFFF N .w e .m e .w e .H N .w Fceueeeswc: pceueeeEF 3ecx uez ea Fee> ucmugeeEFc: pcmugeesF agm> epeum meFeemeueu emceemem FuFmee>Fc= Lo emmFFeeiiceFuauFumcF as» we mgauez erFemem one we eeceueeeEF ”FFve-> ea eueum Fa memcoemem we memepceeeee ecu mewecmaeeem ”mF.e anm» 118 in Michigan, Missouri, and Nebraska were found in those two cate- gories. The modal response for Illinois and Iowa was "important," whereas the modal reSponse for Indiana, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin was "unimportant." The North Dakota respondent "did not know" the importance of the factor. A crosstabulation of respondents' perceptions of the importance of question V-e(3), "specific nature of the institution," namely, "enrollment size" by state location is Shown in Table 4.20. The obtained raw chi-square was 69.87 with 40 degrees of freedom at the .0024 level of significance. Respondents' perceptions of the importance of V-e(3) revealed state-by-state differences. The modal response for the following eight states was "important": Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. It is noted that, except for Missouri, the percentage of respondents in the modal response category for each state was between 45 and 58%. Missouri's percentage of response in that category was 76.9%. The modal response for Minnesota respondents was "unimportant," whereas there was no modal response for South Dakota respondents: 40% perceived the factor as "unimportant," 40% as "important," and 20% as "very important." The overall response from South Dakota was "important." The respondent from North Dakota "did not know" the importance of the factor. 119 Ill". E8. 4. m S u u 3.8 n ...x .802 e F Ne NF m mFeueu casFeu o o F.m F m.FN m m.m¢ m N.wF N :cheesz o o o o o.oe N o.o¢ N o.ON F epexma zuzem o.ooF F o o o o o o o o apogee gugez o o m.mm N o o o.om m F.oF F exmeeeez o o o o «.mF N m.mF oF F.F F Feaemsz m.w F m.m F o.om o o.mN m m.m F muemmchz o o m.m F m.om F m.Fm FF 0 o ceszer F.F F o o «.mF N m.mm F F.MN m memcex o o F.F F m.om e w.mm F F.F F ezeF m.m F o o m.oN m m.Fm FF m.oF N mcmFecF o o F.m F F.oc FF m.Fm eF F.m F mFecFFFF F .F. F F. .F N. F ...F. F .w. zecx Fez on Fzmuwmm”Fc: ucepeeeEFc: ucmeeeeeF pcmwummeF mumpm meFLemequ emceemem eNFm uceeFFegcmiiceFuauFumcF ecu we meseez erFeeem one we eecepeeeEF “Fmvm-> eu eemum Fa memceemem we memepcmeema use meFecezceLe FON.e aneF 120 Table 4.21 is a presentation by state location of the respon- dents' perceptions of the importance of political literature or information read by the president (question V-g). The obtained raw chi-square was 100.60 with 40 degrees of freedom at the .0000 level of significance. Respondents from Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota clearly per- ceived the factor as an important one. Combining percentages of responses in the categories "very impor- tant" and "important" yielded a percentage range of 57-70 for respon- dents in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin. The perceptions of respondents from Missouri were split between important and unimportant: 46.2% perceived the factor as "important," while 46.2% perceived it as unimportant when the response categories "unimportant" (38.5%) and “very unimportant" (7.7%) were combined. While the modal response for Minnesota was "important" (50%), it is noted that 42.9% of the respondents perceived the factor as "unimportant" and 7.1% perceived it as "very unimportant" (42.9% + 7.1%==50.0%). The same situation was revealed in the Michigan responses: 50% of the respondents perceived V-g as "important," but 38% perceived it as "unimportant" and 11.1% as "very unimportant" (38.9% + 11.1% = 50.0%). Table 4.22 is a presentation by states of the respondents' per- ceptions of the importance of the people who advise the president on public policy matters (question V—l). The obtained raw chi-square was 73.13 with 40 degrees of freedom at the .0011 level of signifi- cance. 121 88. ... m 8 n 1m 8.2: n ex .302 N m cc Nw m mFeFea gazFeu o o o o m.Nv m o.om F F.F F cwmceesz o o o.ON F o o o.ow e o o apogee zuzem o.ooF F o o o o o o o o apogee cugez o o o o F.mF F m.mw m o o mxmmgeez F.F F F.F F m.mm m N.o¢ o o o Fezemsz o o F.F F m.Nv o o.om F o o euemechz o o F.FF N m.mm F 0.0m m o o cemFger o o o o F.F F m.oF oF «.mF N memcex o o o o F.mm m o.om F m.¢F N ezeF o o o.m F o.mN m o.mo mF o.m F ecmFecF o o ¢.F N o.mN m m.Fm «F F.FF m mwecFFFF F .F. N N. F H F .w. u N. pampeeeswcz aceueeeEF zocx Fez ea xee> “copeeeEFca ucmFLeQEF xse> eumum mmweemmumu emceemem eceewmmee mg» Fe eeem ceFueELewcF Le eeeeeeeuwe FeeFFFFea we meceFeeeEF Fm-> op eueum Fe memceemem we memmuceeewa ecu mewecezeegu ”FN.e eFeeF 122 :8. n m 8 n 2.2 u NF .32 e o wN mm mF mFmFep cssFeu F.F F F.F F e.FN m m.em m o o :cheesz 0 o o o o.ON F o.om m o.ON F apogee gueem o.ooF F o o o o o o o o euexmo cueez o o m.mm N m.mm N m.mm N o o exmeenez F.F F F.F F F.MN m m.Fo w o o Fesemsz o o o o ¢.FN m e.FF oF F.F F euemeccwz o o o o w.mF m m.Fm FF m.mN m cmmwger o o o o F.mF N o.mF m m.w F memcex o o o o F.mm m F.Fm w F.F F ezeF o.m F o.m F o.ON v o.mo mF o.m F eceFecF o o m.m F F.F N m.mF ON m.FF m mFeszFF F H F .w. F .w. F .w. F .w. pceueeaEFc: FceueerF 3ecx Fez ea mem> FcepeeeEFca FceugoesF xee> eueum meweemmueu emceemem e22 eFeeee we mesmeeeeEF ”F-> e» epepm Fe mmmceqmem we mmmeuceeeea use meFecezceeu memgumz xeFFee eerze :e Fceewmegm egg emF>e< uNNé aneF 123 Responses to the importance of V-l revealed state-by-state dif- ferences. The modal response for the respondents from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, and Wisconsin was "important," with responses ranging from 57-77%. Combining percentages in the response categories "very important" and "important" yielded percents of more than 75 for reSpondents from five of the nine states mentioned above: Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Dakota. In Nebraska, no modal response emerged: one-third of the respondents perceived the factor as ”very unimportant," as "unimpor- tant," and as "important." Nebraska's overall perception was "unim- portant.” Hypothesis 4 H04: There is no significant relationship between presidential ““”‘ tenure and respondents' perceptions of the importance of factors which may or may not affect the relationship of an individual independent college or university to its respective state government in Region I of NAICU. Hypothesis 4 was formulated to test whether a systematic, sta- tistical relationship existed between the independent variable, "presidential tenure,“ and the respondents' perceptions of the degrees of importance of each of a select group of factors (as presented in question V) in affecting the relationship of an individual indepen- dent college or university to elected state government officials. Since presidential tenure ranged from 1 year or less to 28 years, the 23 categories represented by the range were collapsed to 3 cate- gories: 124 1 year or less to 5 years 6 years to 10 years 1 2 3 11 years to 28 years The three tenure categories were used for testing hypotheses 4, 6, 8, and 9. The level of significance for each of the 19 factors of question V was set at .005 (using the Bonferroni Technique). Table 4.23 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of free- dom, level of significance, and number of respondents for each of the 19 factors tested by presidential tenure. Given the evidence pre- sented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. Table 4.23: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 4 ”“8822.“- n. x2 e: a 146 2.26 6 .8942 b 147 7.04 8 .5322 c 147 6.60 8 .5807 a 142 9.97 8 .2669 e(1) 143 8.73 8 .3653 (2) 138 5.71 8 .6794 (3) 138 8.72 8 .3667 f 144 11.25 8 .1881 g 144 10.26 8 .2473 n 145 6.53 8 .5879 i 145 3.95 8 .8618 j 147 7.15 8 .5203 k 146 20.27 8 .0094 1 143 4.40 8 .8194 m 144 12.66 8 .1242 n 145 15.60 8 .0484 o 145 4.33 8 .8263 p 147 13.44 8 .0977 q 148 10.95 6 .0899 125 Hypothesis 5 H05: There is no significant relationship between respondents' '"T' state location and their reported use of various methods and tactics to relate to elected state government officials. Hypothesis 5 was formulated to test whether a systematic, sta- tistical relationship existed between the independent variable, “state location," and the respondents' reported use of each of a select group of methods/tactics (presented in question VIII-a to j). The level of significance for each of the 15 tests was set at .007 (using the Bonferroni Technique). Table 4.24 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square, degrees of freedom, levels of sig- nificance, and number of respondents for each of the methods tested by state location. Given the evidence presented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. Table 4.24: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 5 Question VIII: 2 , Methods/Tactics 5- X 9f. S19- a 149 26.92 30 .6275 b(1) 147 19.33 20 .5004 (2) 147 30.32 30 .4493 (3) 146 18.26 30 .9542 (4) 147 21.05 30 .8863 c 149 23.30 20 .2745 o 149 38.65 30 .1338 e(1) 149 26.31 30 .6591 (2) 148 29.43 30 .4951 (3) 149 47.61 30 .0217 f 148 52.95 30 .0060 g 149 13.53 20 .8537 n 149 28.39 30 .5498 i 149 28.35 30 .5517 i 149 17.57 20 .6157 126 It is noted that the level of significance obtained for VIII-f, "sponsoring a social gathering for elected state government officials," was .0060, indicating a statistically significant relationship between respondents' location by state and their use of that particular activity. Table 4.25 is a presentation of frequencies and percentages of responses by state. The obtained raw chi-square value was 52.95 with 30 degrees of freedom at the .006 significance level. Respondents from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota "occasionally" or "regularly" sponsored a social gathering, while the respondents from Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin "rarely" or "never" sponsored a social gathering for state government officials. However, it is noted that the mpgel_response for Wisconsin was "occasionally." The same per- centage of South Dakota respondents Sponsored a social gathering "regularly" as those who "rarely" and "never" engaged in the activity. In Nebraska, 67% of the respondents "never" sponsored a social gathering, while in Kansas 77% of the respondents "occasionally" did and in Indiana 18.2% "regularly" sponsored such an activity. In Iowa 50.0% of the respondents "occasionally" Sponsored a social gather- ing, whereas in Minnesota 50.0% "rarely" did and in Missouri 46.2% "never" engaged in the activity. Hypothesis 6 H05: There is no significant relationship between presidential ““ tenure and respondents' reported use of various methods and tactics to relate to elected state government officials. 127 1 I'll! Foo. n.m on we mm.~m n «x .oFoz Fm me Fm mF mFeFeF :EzFeu ¢.FN m F.mm m m.N¢ o o o cwmceemwz o.ON F o.oN F o.o¢ N o.ON F euexmo spaem o o o o o o o.ooF F euexmo :FLez F.om e F.0F F F.oF F o o mxmmeaez N.oe o F.mN m w.om e o o Fezemsz F.FN m 0.0m F e.FN m F.F F muemechz m.om F F.FF m w.mF m o o cecher 0 o F.F F m.oF oF «.mF N memcmx F.F F o.mN e o.om F m.eF N ezeF e.mF m F.NN m m.me oF N.mF e ecmwecF F.FF m m.mm m F.oe FF m.eF e mFecFFFF F .H F .H F .H F .H ee>mz FFeLem FFFeceFmeeeo FFLeFammm eFmFm meweemeueu emceemem wFoFonwe oFoFm tow mmeFeoeeae FoFoom mcFLemceem we Feceaeeee ”wiFFF> eF macaw Fe memceemem we memmuceeeme ecu meFecezeeLF FmN.e mFamF 128 Hypothesis 6 was formulated to test whether a systematic, statis- tical relationship existed between the independent variable, ”presi- dential tenure," and the respondents' reported use of each of a select group of methods/tactics (as presented in question VIII-a to j). Using the Bonferroni Technique, the level of significance for each of the 15 tests was set at .007. Table 4.26 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of freedom, level of significance, and number of respondents for each of the 15 methods tested. Given the evidence presented by the data, for the purpose of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. Table 4.26: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 6 Question VIII: 2 Methods/Tactics 9- X 9f, 519' a 148 11.57 6 .0723 b(1) 146 .92 4 .9220 (2) 146 1.66 6 .9480 (3) 145 7.42 6 .2836 (4) 146 12.83 6 .0458 c 148 2.74 4 .6029 d 148 7.35 6 .2899 e(1) 148 11.05 6 .0868 (2) 147 6.84 6 .3356 (3) 148 16.00 6 .0137 f 147 8.85 6 .1821 g 148 8.00 4 .0915 h 148 2.99 6 .8099 i 148 3.46 6 .7494 j 148 .72 4 .9489 129 Hypothesis 7 H07: There is no significant relationship between respondents' "" location by state and their perceptions of the effective- ness of a select group of methods and tactics to influence the voting patterns of elected state government officials. Hypothesis 7 was formulated to test whether a systematic, statis- tical relationship existed between the independent variable, "state location," and the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of each of a select group of methods/tactics (as presented in question XI-a to j) in influencing the voting patterns of elected state govern- ment officials. Using the Bonferroni Technique, the level of significance for each of the 15 tests was set at .007. Table 4.27 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of freedom, levels of significance, and number Of respondents for each of the 15 tests. Given the evidence presented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. It is noted that the obtained level of significance for XI-a, "attending legislative committee meetings," was .0023, indicating a statistically significant relationship between state location and the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of that activity. Table 4.28 is a presentation of the frequencies and percentages of respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of XI-a by state loca- tion. The obtained raw chi-square value was 70.00 with 40 degrees of freedom at the .0023 level of significance. Respondents from Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Dakota perceived factor XI-a to be basically effective. 130 The combination of percentages for the response categories "very effective" and "effective" for those states ranged from 61.5% to 80%. Table 4.27: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 7 Question XI: 2 . Methods/Tactics 9- X Qf_ $19. a 145 70.00 40 .0023 b(1) 146 51.51 40 .1050 (2) 147 39.17 40 .5072 (3) 144 38.02 40 .5598 (4) 143 62.35 40 .0134 C 145 44.58 30 .0422 d 146 43.91 30 .0486 e(1) 147 44.46 40 .2894 (2) 147 49.59 40 .1423 (3) 146 52.47 40 .0894 f 145 50.09 40 .1317 g 145 31.56 40 .8272 h 146 44.90 40 .2741 1 145 38.22 40 .5504 j 144 31.63 40 .8251 Iowa and North Dakota respondents perceived the activity as ineffective. Respondents from Wisconsin and Nebraska were split in their perceptions of the effectiveness of XI-a. In Wisconsin, 28.6% rated it as "ineffective," 35.7% as "effec- tive," and 35.7% as "do not know." In Nebraska, 40% rated XI-a as "very effective," whereas 20% perceived it to be "ineffective“ and 20% as "very ineffective." Michigan and Missouri respondents revealed inverse responses: In Michigan the modal response was "effective" (47.4%) followed by 131 FNoo. u.m OF n.wm oo.oF u NF .FFoz FN m mm FF FF FFFFoF FeFFoe F.FF m o o F.FN F F.FF m o o FFFeooFF: o o o o o.ON F F.FF N F.FF N FFFFFQ FFFom o o o o F.FOF F o o o o FFoFFo epeoz F.FN F F.0N F F.0N F o o F.FF N FFFFLFoz N.FF F o o F.FF N F.FF F F.F F FeFoFFFz F.FF N o o F.FF N F.FF F F.F F eFoFoFFFz F.FF F F.F F F.FF N F.FF F o o FFFFeon F.F F o o F.FF N F.FF FF 0 o FFFFFF F.F F o o F.FF F F.FF F o 9 83°F F.F N F.F F N.FF F F.FF FF N.FF F FFFFFFF F.FF F o o F.FN F F.FF FF F.F F mFoFFFFF F .M F .M F .H F N. F .M zecx Fez ea e>FFmWM»ecF e>FFeewwecF e>Fueewwm e>Fwwwfiwm epeum meweemeueu emceemem mmCFueez eeFFFEEeu m>FFmFmme4 mcFeceFF< ”F-Fx we mmece>wueewwu op mumpm Fa memceemmm we memmpceegea ece meFecezeme “NN.F eFeeF 132 "do not know" (36.8%), whereas in Missouri the modal response was “do not know" (46.2%) followed by "effective" (30.8%). Hypothesis 8 H08: There is no significant relationship between presidential "“ tenure and the respondents' perceptions of the effective- ness of a select group of methods and tactics to influ- ence the voting patterns of elected state government officials. Hypothesis 8 was formulated to test whether a systematic, statis- tical relationship existed between the independent variable, "presi- dential tenure," and the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of each of a select group of methods/tactics (as presented in question XI-a to j) in influencing the voting patterns of state government officials. The level of significance for each of the 15 tests was set at .007 (using the Bonferroni Technique). Table 4.29 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of freedom, level of significance, and number of respondents for each of the 15 tests. Given the evidence presented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. It is noted that the obtained level of significance for XI-a, "attending legislative committee meetings," was .0038, indicating a statistically significant relationship between "presidential tenure" and the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of that method in influencing voting patterns. Table 4.29: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 8 133 Question XI: Methods/Tactics D. X 9i. 519- a 144 22.71 8 .0038 b(1) 145 6.92 8 .5449 (2) 146 4.49 8 .8107 (3) 143 4.71 8 .7882 (4) 142 5.63 8 .6886 c 144 3.19 6 .7843 o 145 9.41 6 .1520 e(1) 146 3.99 8 .8585 (2) 146 5.30 8 .7246 (3) 145 7.29 8 .5053 f 144 7.48 8 .4857 9 144 4.87 8 .7709 n 145 9.28 8 .3188 i 144 17.33 8 .0269 i 143 3.14 8 .9253 Table 4.30 is a presentation of the frequencies and percentages of responses to XI-a by presidential tenure categories. The obtained raw chi-square value was 22.71 with 8 degrees of freedom at the .0038 level of significance. Row and column percentages are presented. The more inexperienced presidents had fewer Opinions of the effectiveness of attending legislative committee meetings. Of the 29 respondents in the "do not know" category, 75.9% had been in office from one to five years. Those who had been in Office six years and more rated XI-a as "effective" or "very effective." The responses of the less experienced presidents (1-5 years) were almost equally split between "very ineffective" plus "ineffective" (30.6% combined) and "effective" plus "very effective" (38.9% combined). 134 .memmucmegme :E:Feun .memeuceeeea zome $8. 1 N F n 1m :.N n Fx .882 mm m mm me p— mpmuou :Ez—ou m.o— m.mm N.m~ $.0N m.m¢ m.op m v.m F N.ON o m.w¢ v— N.m~ m mmip— w.m~ o N.FN F.¢v N.mp m.@ e o O m.@~ N w.m© om N.v N opuo m.mm . m.©© 0.00 m.mm n¢.©m 0.0m NN w.N N w.mm ON m.mm 0N mo.m ¢ mip F F. F .w. F ..F. F H F H meme» cF ZOCX HOZ OD m>wHMWWNWCH w>wHUw¥¥mCH m>w#Uw%¥m m>wwWWMWM mLDCQM PMwHCQVmeLQ meFLemeFeu emceemmm mmcwpeez emFFFEEeu e>FFeFmFme4 mcweceuu< Fein we mmece>FFemwwm op eezcmF meeceewmeea Fe mmmceemem we memeuceegma ece meFeceeeeLF ”om.F eFeeF 135 The modal response for the most experienced presidents (ll-28 years) was "effective," with 48.3% of their responses in that cate- gory. The modal response for presidents in the 6—10 year group was "effective," with 69.8% of their responses in that category. In the response category "very effective," the highest per- centage of responses (45.5%) was in the 11-28 year group, whereas the highest percentage of response in the "effective" category (44.1%) was in the 6-10 year group. The highest percentages of responses in the "ineffective" and "very ineffective" response categories were in the 1-5 year group, 60.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Hypothesis 9 H09: There is no significant relationship between presidential ”‘T' tenure and respondents' reported use of support groups in their relationships with elected state government officials. Hypothesis 9 was formulated to test whether a systematic, statistical relationship existed between the independent variable, "presidential tenure," and the use of support groups by respondents in their effort to make state government officials aware of effects of an issue on their institution or on independent higher education. Table 4.31 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of freedom, level of significance, and number of respondents for each of the seven tests. The level of significance for this test was set at .014 (using the Bonferroni Technique). Given the evidence presented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. 136 Table 4.31: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis 9 Support Group u_ X2 gf_ Sig. a. Administrators 148 15.20 6 .019 b. Faculty or staff 148 5.96 6 .428 c. Students 148 6.27 6 .393 d. Alumni 146 5.20 6 .518 e. Trustees 148 7.09 6 .312 f. Civic/corporate/ business leaders 148 6.15 6 .407 g. Church/religious leaders 148 2.18 6 .903 Hypothesis lO HO : There is no significant relationship between mileage and ”T’ the respondents' reported use of forms of communication with elected state government officials. Hypothesis 10 was formulated to test whether a systematic statis- tical relationship exists between the independent variable, mileage, and the forms of communication preferred by respondents when they communicated with: a. the Governor b. 1egislator(s) from the institution's district c. key legislators related to the issue d. other legislators regarding the impact of pending legislation on independent higher education. The level of significance for each of the four tests was set at .025 (using the Bonferroni Technique). Table 4.32 is a presentation of the obtained raw chi-square value, degrees of freedom, level of 137 significance, and number of respondents for each of the four tests. Given the evidence presented by the data, for the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was tenable. Table 4.32: Summary of Statistics for Hypothesis lO State Officials u_ X2 g:_ Sig. a. the Governor 140 15.85 12 .198 b. district legislator 136 17.92 16 .329 c. key legislators 139 26.33 16 .050 d. other legislators 139 16.93 16 .390 Summary The results of the testing of the study's 10 null hypotheses were presented in the preceding section. Nine hypotheses were tenable. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. While differences of opinion were reflected by the respondents to the questionnaire items, when tested by the designated independent variable, the differences to the following questions did not indicate statistically significant relationships to the independent variable: Questionnaire Question and Independent Variable I. Importance of selected factors in State Location (H01) affecting the relationship of the independent sector to state gov- Presidential Tenure (H02) ernments V. Importance of selected factors in affecting the relationship of an individual independent institu- Presidential Tenure (H04) tion to elected state government officials VI. VII. VIII. XI. 138 Preferred forms of commu- nication Use of support groups in gov- ernment relations Frequency of use Of selected methods in relating to elected state government officials Perceived effectiveness of selected activities/tactics in influencing the voting of legislators Mileage (H010) Presidential Tenure (H09) State Location (H05) Presidential Tenure (H06) State Location (H07) Presidential Tenure (H08) Although hypotheses 5, 7, and 8 were tenable, it is noted that the levels of significance obtained for VIII-f ("sponsoring a social gathering for elected officials") and state location, and XI-a ("attending legislative committee meetings") and state location and presidential tenure indicated statistically significant relationships between those activities and the specified independent variables. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. Statistically significant relation- ships were found between the independent variable, "state location," and the perceived importance of the following factors (from ques- tion V) in affecting the relationship of an individual independent institution's relationship to state officials: V-c. the institution's reliance on state aid to students V-g. political literature or information read by the president V-l. people who advise the president on public policy matters V-e. the specific nature of the institution (1) college or university and (3) enrollment CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWS Introduction This chapter contains a presentation and analysis of the infor- mation gathered from the interviews conducted by the investigator with 17 of the 22 (77%) Michigan independent college and university presidents in the study population. The institutions represented by the interviewees can be found in Appendix 0. The first section of Chapter V is a profile of the interviewees and their institutions. The second section is a presentation of the major findings from the interviews held between May 13, 1980, and June 5, 1980. The interview guide and interview questions can be found in Appendix C. Profile of Interviewees Using Selected Factors Personal Profile Education. Table 5.1 is a presentation of the interviewees' educational level by highest degree earned. Of the 17 presidents, 12% earned a master's degree, 71% the doctoral degree, 6% a profes- sional degree, and 12% a doctoral eug_a professional degree. Of the two presidents who held a master's degree, one had been awarded an honorary doctoral degree. 139 140 Table 5.1: Frequencies and Percentages of Educational Level of Interviewees by Highest Degree Earned Degree Earned f_ %a Master's 2 12 Doctoral 12 71 Professional 1 6 Doctoral and professional 2 12 Total 17 100b aPercentages are based on number of interviewees (17). bDue to rounding, percentage column totals may not equal 100.0%. Ieuuge. Table 5.2 is a presentation of the presidential tenure of the interviewees. Presidential tenure ranged from less than 1 year to 24 years. Of the 17 interviewees, ll presidents (65%) had been in office 4 years and less, 4 had been president between 6 and 10 years, 1 had been president for 11 years, and 1 for 24 years. The mean tenure in years (X) for the interview p0pu1ation was approximately five and one-half years. Previous experience as a president. Of the 17 interviewees, 2 had previous presidential experience--l at one other institution (in the state of Michigan) and 1 at two other institutions (both out- side the state of Michigan). The institutions represented in the pre- vious presidencies were independent colleges. 141 Table 5.2: Frequencies and Percentages of Presidential Tenure of Interviewees by Years in Office Years in Office f_ % 1 or less 3 18 2 l 6 3 4 23 4 3 l8 6 l 6 7 l 6 8 l 6 9 1 6 11 1 6 24 l 6 Total 17 100 Note: Mean tenure = 5.53. Institutional Profile Enrollment. Table 5.3 is a presentation of institutional enroll- ment categories by frequencies and percentages as reported by the 17 interviewees in the questionnaire. The institutions represented by the interviewees fell into three of the six enrollment categories. More than 85% of the 17 institutions had enrollments between 500 and 2,499 students. Mileage. All of the 17 institutions represented by the inter- viewees were between 1 and 150 miles from Lansing, Michigan (the state capital), with all but one between 1 and 100 miles. Of the 17, 2 were between 1-50 miles, 14 between 51-lOO miles, and 1 between 100-150 miles from Lansing. 142 Table 5.3: Frequencies and Percentages of Enrollment of Interviewees' Institutions by Enrollment Categories Enrollment Categories f_ % 200- 499 - - 500- 999 6 35 1,000- 2,499 9 53 2,500- 4,999 2 12 5,000- 9,999 - - l0,000-19,999 - - Total 17 100 Association membership. All 17 interviewees were members of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan (AICUM). Of the 17 Michigan presidents, 4 had served as chairperson of the Executive Committee of AICUM; 4 others had served or are presently serving as members of AICUM's Executive Committee. Two of the 17 interviewees had served on the Board Of Directors of NAICU representing Region I, and 1 of the 2 presidents served as Chairman of the NAICU Board of Directors for two terms. Major Findings From Interview Data As a result of the pilot test of the questionnaire, questions were raised as to the reasons or motivations behind some of the presidents' responses. The investigator developed a preliminary list Of interview questions which were then pilot tested as noted in Chapter III. When approximately 50% of the 212 questionnaires were 143 returned, the investigator analyzed responses and finalized the list of interview questions (see Appendix C). Presentation and analysis of interview data follow the numeri- cal order of the interview questions. The correspondence of interview questions to questionnaire questions can be found in Appendix D. Interview Question 1 Since early questionnaire responses revealed that some respon- dents had not ranked their responses (as stated in the directions to question II) and since four of the original eight questionnaire choices were emerging more frequently than the others, question 1 of the interview was aimed at refining the ranking of state officials on whom independent college and university presidents focused. Of the four state Officials listed: The Governor State legislator from your institution's district State legislators who are members of an Appropri- ations Committee State legislators who are members of an Education Committee, the interviewees' overall ranking was as follows: 1. District legislator II. Education Committee legislators III. Appropriations Committee legislators IV. The Governor The following differences in ranking by the Michigan presidents are noted: One president chose the Governor as number one, while another president ranked the district legislator as fourth. The Education Committee legislators were ranked second by 8 of the 16 interviewees; the Appropriations Committee legislators were ranked third by an equal number (8). 144 As in the questionnaire, one interviewee chose ugt_to rank, stating, "We have had very little direct contact with state 1egis- lators at all. Our need is such it has not caused us to relate actively to state officials." When asked ghy_they ranked one state official over another, interviewees' responses centered around the following factors: political realities in the state of Michigan, accessibility of par- ticular legislators, the political decision-making process, and the recommendations received from the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (AICUM). Responses indicated that the Michigan presidents had very little personal or direct contact with the Governor. Many perceived that to be a key role for the AICUM staff. Instead, the presidents said they focused on district legislators who were more available and accessible to them. Given the amount of time and energy they invested in political matters, the Michigan presidents perceived that the district legislator was the key official "most likely to have an interest in what we, as an institution, are trying to do" and if they "communicate effectively with him, he can certainly represent us." The decision-making process and political realities of state government were the reasons given for the second, third, and fourth rankings. The Education Committee was perceived as where "the initia- tion of matters begins" and its work "can have an influence on apprOpriations." It is important, stated one interviewee, that focus- ing on the Education Committee "helps build a fundamental support 145 for what you're doing, builds an understanding of the issues, and the necessity of the programs" being supported or recommended for 1egis- lation. Another Michigan president found it difficult to rank the Education Committee over the ApprOpriations Committee or vice versa. Since legislative programs mean money, and "since the bottom line is to get financial aid for students, persuading the people who write the programs to write them in the appropriate fashion is as important as getting the money." Some interviewees perceived the Appropriations Committee as being more influential than the Education Committee because it "wields the financial stick" and because "the appropriations process is more important than the authorization process" (a function of the Educa- tion Committee). Many interviewees cited AICUM as the source of their direction for focusing on elected state government officials. Several cited the history of political realities in the state of Michigan regarding independent higher education as another clear factor. The history in Michigan has been "supportive legislation," but if the Governor were to veto such legislation, "the focus might be different." At least 4 of the 17 presidents stated that the focus on particu- lar elected state government officials would also be different if they were affiliated with a state or publicly supported college or university. 146 Interview Question 2 Question 2 was related to the use made by presidents of support groups (Trustees, administrators, faculty, students) in the politi— cal process at the state level and was aimed at eliciting the circum- stances under which these groups would or would not be asked to lend support. More than half of the interviewees said they would take direc- tion from AICUM's President, John Gaffney, regarding the involvement of campus constituents. They felt the nature of the legislation or program under consideration, timeliness of enlisting support, and specific functions of the support groups were key factors to be con- sidered prior to involving anyone other than the president. As one president said, to act without AICUM's direction "would endanger our solidarity." Another said that involvement of support groups needs to be "orchestrated" because “you don't want to throw the weight of your constituencies into an issue that is still being negotiated in a subcommittee." Another Michigan president stated that the use of such support groups must be "very judicious" because "you do not want to appear as if you're bringing undue pressure on state legislators," and "you want to select people who can give legislators or committees insights into the issues, important clarifications of issues, and information that will help [them] make an informed and prudent judg- ment." If AICUM or legislators asked for information regarding impend- ing educational legislation, most presidents said they would enlist the support of the administrators on their staff with the appropriate 147 background and expertise. Very few presidents recalled asking stu- dents or alumni to become involved in public policy issues, and one president mentioned a philosophical position of the institution against involving a faculty member or an alumnus. Several presidents cited specific instances or issues which would cause them to enlist the support of campus constituents. They were as follows: . . when the legislation has to do directly with the welfare Of the institution or directly to do with the students of the institution. They would not be asked under any other circum- stances. . when their participation would add great strength to the argument, say a threat to direct student financial aid. . . . . . whenever a piece of legislation that directly affects them is at stake; for example, we would enlist the aid of students and their parents when any given piece of legislation directly or ultimately affects them. . when general institutional policy is affected by pro- posed legislation, we would enlist our Trustees. . . . It all depends on the nature of the legislation. I think the Legislature, as I know legislators, are affected by those of their constituency who are, themselves, affected by a pro- posed piece of legislation. . . if we're trying to get something across or if something is happening that is very detrimental to the institution, I can envision contacting some trustees who might have some influence. Take student financial aid. If there would be a reduction. I think it would be very effective if students and parents were enlisted to deal directly with their legislators . . . and I know they are very persuasive because I've had some of our own legislators tell me so. Interview Question 3 Respondents' perceptions of the importance of an institution's reliance on federal monies as a factor affecting their relationship 148 to their respective state government were the same for the pilot test, the 104 questionnaires analyzed prior to the interviews, and the 149 completed questionnaires from the study p0pu1ation. Respon- dents were split almost down the middle of the range of categories of importance, with a slightly higher percentage perceiving the fac- tor as important, as Opposed to unimportant. When asked about this phenomenon, almost all of the Michigan presidents perceived the fac- tor as unimportant. A couple of presidents saw the relationship as important. One interviewee said: I don't have enough information to give a good judgment--only a guess--but they're related in a positive way. Heavy receipts from the federal government would be correlated positively with heavy receipts from the state. Another president felt the factor could be important. "It would depend upon the institution's posture, as to whether it was a type of college that would serve a given geographic region of a state, or whether it had a national reputation." Another college president whose institution relies upon federal support for special programs and services said: For our college, I'd say it's important. We do have very specific federally funded programs. . . . For many of the federal programs, the endorsement is needed from state peOple. . . . Regarding student aid, this same president said, "There's a close relationship between federal and state financial aid resources." The interviewees who saw the factor of an institution's reliance on federal monies as unimportant to its relationship to state govern- ment provided the following comments: 149 One of the things you have to realize about the differences [between state and federal relationships] is that at the fed- eral level the programs are set up regardless of whether you are a public or an independent institution, and the difference, of course, in the state of Michigan is that we have a number of programs which are geared quite specifically to the independent institutions. I view these as two separate entities. Our federal program monies do not have much impact on what we receive from the state. What we get from the federal govern- ment we get on the basis of merit and not need. They're quite independent. I think the two are mutually exclusive . . . but that may vary with the individual institutions. . . what happens at the federal level tends to happen quite separately from what happens at the state level. . . . We view federal legislation to have less Significance for state legis- lation . . . but there's a great variation among states. Michigan does a great deal for its private and independent sector and seemingly independent of much of what goes on at the federal level while that was not the case in Illinois. Interview Question 4 As noted in Chapter III, 89 (60%) of the respondents "never" extended personal favors to state officials, their families, and/or staff and 42 (28%) "rarely” did. Only 18 (12%) of the 149 respondents said they APPENDIX J FREQUENCIES OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 245 APPENDIX J FREQUENCIES OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Si 95" OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF INDEPENDENT HIGHER EDUCATION TO STATE COVEPNVCNTS APRIL 1980 Simon L "13 Bet-lain.» O P 905 “‘0" SW?" Pesea'._"e' East Lansing. Michigan 68323 151': ’3. 0291 or (SI?) 353 3520 r». .3.” . 'i ' r : ri 'JLUSC‘S rm :rii 't‘IOIIiD"\"ID of indepenflml dillrgi :r u" t"~ :i'~ ti Plate: slan- -_ov.ern~ie't L‘f-‘ICIO’S, : ‘ tfll. .”i Ly trrsr c' : start It; slcfcvrs I. Bela. vnu will find a seleried list 0' factors ehich may allect the relationship of the indeBendent sector of higher education t5 s_'.a:e 9m ernrtetts Please indicate l I hon you perceive the importance of EACH—factor inmy—ojr— state. (b Vat [wad Wt Urumt [Want Kim a Understanding of the state's political processes by presidents 76 7| I of the independent colleges universities b. Governor's position on state aid to independent higher education 93 53 2 | c. The state Constitution 37 77 23 5 5 d. Merits of the issue contained in a particular bill which relates to independent higher education 84 62 I e. Hmber of independent colleges and universities in the state 30 98 | 7 t. Etiectiveness of the state association of independent colleges and universities I 07 4' g Legislators' personal philosophy about state aid to independent institutions and their "0600“ 68 77 3 h. Personalities of the presidents of the independent colleges universities 7 | 02 22 I O 5 i. Percent of state students enrolled at hdepcsdent colleges universities 29 | 08 8 l 2 i. Independent sector‘s provision of service to citizens of the state 4 0 93 7 l 2 ti. Communication techniques used by the independent colleges' universities in their relationships elth the Governor and state 6 3 8 I 4 legislators I. Extent to which a vote for independent higher edszation eiill help or hurt a legislator in—tI'se neat ehction 2 I 87 23 7 I 0 iii. Responsiveness of 'esdependent colleges ‘universities In neeting 2 2 I 02 I ' 3 I I needs and requests of individual legislators or the Governor n. Fiscal implications of each bill which pertains to independent higher «mm 6 0 8 5 2 l Stature of the state‘s independent colleges and universities 5 8 a 7 I I 2 Relationship between public higher education and independent 3 I ' I 3 2 | ‘ higher education in the state q. Mutual trust between state educators and elected state 5 3 89 4 3 government officials II II voo actively relate to elected state government officials (specifically. the Governor and state legislators). please NASH 'he TOP THREE officials on whom you focus your attention during any given year. 7 0 a The Governor IO 7 b State legislators from your institution's district 28 c. Elected leadership of the state Legislature le.g . Speaker of the House, maiority leader of Senate, etc.) 9| d State legislators who are members of a legislative canmittee ehich discusses education and 'or higher education I 7 e State legislators who consistently vote in favor of independent higher education issues ' 4 l Those legislators who though not elected to formal leadership eithin the Legislature. are leechrs by virtue 0' their personal influence within the Legislature 5 2 9. Slale legislators iiiho are members of a legislative coemmttee which discusses appropriations to highei education .--.---__----------—-—---_--------.--»--------—--—----—----—----------- ............ I2 h Othei state ol'iiialisl -."'t‘i“i .‘t‘t '. I'Ilt .“i'\'!'i"‘ | 6 i Io m not ail-vets relate to elected slate covernmenl olli..als 246 247 Ill. Please checli I.l HOh OFTEN y0u use EACH of the approaches listed below when an issue before the state Leg’slature will ha-e an impact on independent higher education (e.g., appropriations). AliasOana'dtRadths-r a. I express My vie-s girgtly to state government officials when an issue will have 45 9| I 2 I an inpact on independent higher education in the state. b I express thy views cfl'rgtly to state government officials when an issue will have 9| 4'] 9 I an impact on our institution, c t ”I.“ the $0900" of Omar members of the institution (faculty, students. Trustees) a 81 48 4 to matte known their views on an issue which will affect independent higher education. d. l ”I," the ”mm” of other members of the institution (faculty, students. Trustees) 23 87 36 2 to make known their views on an issue which will affct our institution. 3 l m the staff of the state association of independent colleges and universities to lino- and to represent the vie-s of the [id—ependent sector on the issue before I 40 9 the Legislature. l. l Efr!!! my views on the particular issue to the staff of the state association and 65 65 I7 I 2553 them to represent my we- to state pvernment officials. --- . . _..-- --.--.--.-.---.-.--.--o--o-oo—oe-o—-o--o— u---.--------—----—-—------------------. -Q------- --—-- Iv. From the list below, please RANK the TOP THREE individuals lorganixations which Influence theJosltions and actions talien by your institution in public policy matters at the state level of government. I 36 a. The executive administrators of the institution | 7 ti. The faculty 7 c. The students 5 e. The Aiuiiiiii of ihs institution I 00 e. The Institution's Ioerd of Trustees I24 f. The state association of independent colleges and universities I 3 g. Church/religious luders '6 h. Corporate.’buslneaslclvic loders I 4 i. Legislative specialist or pverneient liaison on the institution's staff 4 i. Others (Noose specify tthe or position} ---. - _ -- . --- ------. ---a.-----4---.--..------.---a---n-coo--------------------------------—--------------------. ------------------- V. In your opinion. the IMPORTANT is och of "I following selected factors In affecting the rebtlonshlp of en INDIVIDUAL college or university to elected state government officials’ Vay Vry Eb Nu m w W W Kruv a. The independent status of the institution 56 72 | 3 6 ti- The institution's proximity to the state Capitol I 25 95 24 3 c. The institution's reliance on state aid to students 53 66 I 9 5 5 d. The institution's reliance on federal monies 20 65 52 9 7 e. The specific nature of the institution ll) College or mlversity I4 67 49 9 5 I?" Church related or non-church related I5 53 57 7 7 l.) Enrollment size I 3 73 42 7 4 f. People who influence the Institution's position in public policy matters 30 a I 7 2 I I 9. Political literature or information read by the President 9 a 44 a 2 h. Personal relationships with the Governor or state legislators 4| 89 a 6 2 i. The President's acadcaic preparation and background 7 55 67 I I 6 l- The President's personality I a 98 26 2 4 h. The President's years in office I 6 76 ‘4 a 4 I. People who ads—ise the President on public policy matters '3 93 28 6 4 m. T:|P:ge:i::n::':::vious experience as president of another 4 as 66 I 7 20 n The President's prevoous nonacademic worls experience 5 28 74 20 I 9 o. 'omLof’cvttzzf‘atggcm? by the President in relating to 22 93 2| 3 T p. Megan'a‘sgms' cgzzmpztlscyatmgr’ by the President which 7 a 29 9 q. \les‘tzersxi‘ixntr: state association of independent colleges .8 58 2 ' 248 Vi. when one wishes to communicate 17.3“}! with the Governor and state legislators regarding the impact of pending legislation on independent higher education there are several 'orms of commiinication which can be used. For EACH official listed_ please check lsfl the ONE for!“ of communication ehich you use in the ‘.:AJORITY of instances. I &i Vot Intim Cu tllMC‘ Tdephne Ferric! Vim To To Lincti Dimh him (41 Letter 0”": Drifter T'iis 'Jffiouf a. The Cavernor 7 I I O I O I 9 b. Legislatoris) from yOur institution's district 5 3 49 I7 22 I c. Key legislators related to the issue (if different from yOur district legislator) l 5 I 00 I 3 8 8 d. Other legislators I O 98 2 4 3 I Vll. On occasions when you enlist the support of others to make state government officials aware of effects of an issue on your institution or at independc'it higher ”mation in general, how often do_you ask the following groufl for support? ‘WWWNM a Administrators of the institution 42 7B 24 5 b Faculty or staff of the institution 6 63 62 | 3 c swarm 4 iii 66 28 d- Mum i 73 68 i5 e. lea-bers of the institution’s Board of Trustees 25 I06 I 3 5 f Civic/corporetelbusinos leaders of the local community 6 77 47 lg g Ieilgiouslchurch leaders 3 38 60 48 I--o-Q-----------..-----------OOOOOO-OO-c—----------------c---------------------- --- ........... Vlll Below is a list of activities which may or may not be used by college'university presidents as part of their effort to relate to elected state governmcit officials. Please indicate [.1 How OFTEN you engage in EACH ACTIVITY. RM W M Neva- HOIV OFTE‘V DO YOU: a. attend legislative committee meetings’ 6 34 8 I 28 b. invite elected state wvernment officials to U) address dunes grows? 6| 57 3? I1) spclt to student grotpslclasses? 8 90 38 I (1) give a Commencuient address’ 4 80 42 20 (I) addr-s professional groups of educators? 4 62 55 26 c. provide information about your institution to elected state government officials? 48 30 2| matte suggestions to state government officials regrding possible legislation 28 93 26 2 to solve problus particular to indepcident higher education? a. inform electd state wverment officials of the effects on your institution of: (1) existing state laws? 33 79 3' 6 (2) existing state regulations? 30 85 27 6 (3) the Governor's proposed education budget? 35 73 28 I 3 f. sponsor a social gathering for elected state wvemment officials? ‘5 57 45 3 I g. extend personal favors to elected state pvernment officials. to their '8 42 89 families. and/or staff? h. aslt elected state government officials to be present at Commencements? I 4 48 55 32 i. ask elected state government officials to be present at significant campus events or celebrations? l. award an honorary degree to elected state government officiallsl’ 5| 38 ----_-----e.-o-moooonoumoooo-.---e---dunno-one---e.g-------—_-g--------—-----‘-----------o----------. ................................ ix. As you attmpt to maintain working relationships with the Governor and state legislators, which of the following publications provide you with helpful information? Please check as many as apgly. 45 a. Publications 'bulletins from the Education 46 g. Publications ‘newsletters from state Commission of the States legislators to constituents 4] b. Chan! 77 h. The Association of governing §_oard Rmrts I 3 I c. The Chronicle of Higher Education 50 i. Publications bulletins from state government I 27 d Publications bulletins from the state association 'gfl'd” of independent colleges and universities 65 I. CASC publications 3' e. ace publications i ' it. Other 89 f. The | ' ”‘9‘”, (phase soecify titre scarce oTouoficationi 3 i. We do not actively relate to elected state government officials. 249 i. From the list below. please RANK the TOP THREE individuals who provide you with the most helpful advice for your relationship with elected state government O'rlClCIS. 73 a. An indgEndent college university president from your state 59 b. A ”ber of tho state Legislature 36 c. The executive administrators of the institution 22 d. A member of the Governor's staff 4 e. A proident of a glicly supported college university within your stats I 32 f. The staff of the state association of independent colleges and universities 5 g. Aiuiini 36 h. A member of institution's Board of Trustees 7 l. Corporate/businessicivlc leader(s) I 0 I. A member of a state pvernment agency Tore-as: specify titTe and agency) I4 ti. Friends and acguaintances I 4 l. Legislative specialist or 'vernment Iaison on the Institution's staff 8m.0thers WMSC specify We TposftionT 4 n. Io & not actively relate to elated state government officials. u------------------------0--..- XI. In your opinion. how EFFECTIVE is EACH of the following activities in infiumtcing the votinflttems of elected state gavernment officials? Vm'y me D: M! 5% EM house PM Kine HO. EFFECTIVE IS : a. mending iegisietive cemetttee neetiiigst l I 69 33 3 29 b. inviting dected state government officials to; Ill addr-s alt-mi grouse? I 53 47 5 4O (2) spclt to student groups/closed? 4 67 4O 34 I!) five a Commencoent address? 4 6I 36 8 III address professional groups of sdtmators? 4 6 I 39 4 c. providing information about your institution to elected state pvernment officials? 28 94 I I '2 d. melting suggmtions to state pvernment officials reprding possible 32 92 9 I 3 buslmion to sdve probi-s particular b independent Ngher education? s. informing elected state pveneaerit officials of the effects on your IMIIIUW 0'; Illexistingstateiows? 3' 38 I? g I3 I!) eaisting state regsdations? 52 9 I I 3 (JitheCovernor's proposed estimation bsdgett 26 69 I3 3 I5 f. sponsoring a social ptherlng for dated state government officials? 9 65 32 3 36 g. ewtodng personal favors to elcted state pvernment officials? 3 20 34 2I 67 h. setting elected state government officials to be pres-it at Calmencmaents? I 59 45 I I 50 I. sellingeiectadstate'verrmmit officialstebapresm'itat 7 si'iificant campus events or calfirstksnet 9 6 2' 5 34 I. awarding an l'mnorsry degree to dated state pvernmm-it officlaiisi t 6 4I 33 7 57 Please indicate the enrollment of your institution. I l under 200 t I s00 - 900 I I 2.500 - 0.9” I l 10,000 - 19,999 I I 200 - us I I 1,000 - 2.!” I I 5,000 - 9.9” I I 20,000 and above Please indicate the approximate mileage from your [ | l - 50 miles I I let - in miles I l 200. miles institution to the capital city of your state. I I St - iss miles I I ISI - 200 miles At the mt time is your institution a muber of your state's association i'fsderation Ioouncil of independent colleges and universities? I IVES I | NO How long have you been the President of this InIIIIutlon’ If you were previously President of another college or university. please provide the foibwing information: Pinse indicate your acadmslc field of Bachelor's Master's concentration for .ch applicable degree. Doctoral Professional THANK YOU for your cooperation in completing this Questionnaire. If yOu wish a summary of the results. please complete "’1' enclosed Reouest Form and return it with the Questionnaire or by seoomte nailing. 4 stomped. self-addressed em eiope is enclosed for return of the Questionnaire. Sister Linda Bevilacqua. O.P. 90$ Alton Street i‘i ‘i""-’i East Lansing. Michigan “323 _ _ _. - - cc-m---o--o---o------—-m---u--------------------—------------—----------—---. APPENDIX K QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS 250 APPENDIX K QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS (N_= l49) IllinoisALN = 28) Augustana College Aurora College Barat College Bradley University College of Saint Francis Concordia Teachers College De Paul University Elmhurst College Eureka College Greenville College Illinois College Illinois Institute of Technology Kendall College Knox College Lake Forest College Lewis University Loyola University of Chicago Monmouth College Mundelein College National College of Education North Park College Olivet Nazarene College Quincy College Rockford College Roosevelt University Saint Xavier College Spertus College of Judaica Trinity Christian College Indiana IN = 221 Bethel College Calumet College Earlham College Franklin College of Indiana Grace College Hanover College Huntington College Indiana Central University 251 252 Indiana Institute of Technology Marian College Marion College Oakland City College Saint Francis College Saint Joseph's College Saint Mary-of-the-woods College Saint Mary's College Saint Meinrad College Taylor University Tri-State University University of Evansville University of Notre Dame Valparaiso University Iowa (N = 14) Cornell College Drake University Graceland College Grand View College Grinnell College Loras College Luther College Morningside College Mount Mercy College Saint Ambrose College Upper Iowa University Nartburg College Nestmar College William Penn College Kansas (N = l31 Benedictine College Bethany College Kansas Newman College Kansas Wesleyan College McPherson College Marymount College of Kansas Mid—America Nazarene College Ottawa University Saint Mary College Saint Mary of the Plains College Southwestern College Sterling College Tabor College 253 Michigan4(N = 19) Adrian College Albion College Alma College Andrews University Aquinas College Calvin College Center for Creative Studies Concordia College Detroit Institute of Technology Hope College Kalamazoo College Madonna College Marygrove College Mercy College of Detroit Nazareth College Northwood Institute Olivet College Siena Heights College Spring Arbor College Minnesota(N = l41 Augsburg College Bethel College Carleton College College of Saint Benedict College of Saint Scholastica College of Saint Teresa Concordia College at Moorhead Concordia College--Saint Paul Gustavus Adolphus College Hamline University Macalester College Northwestern College Saint John's University Saint Mary's College Missouri (N = l3) Central Methodist College Culver-Stockton College Evangel College Fontbonne College Hannibal-La Grange Missouri Valley College Park College 254 Rockhurst College Saint Louis University Southwest Baptist College Stephens College Tarkio College William Woods College Nebraska (N = 62 Concordia Teachers College Doane College Hastings College Midland Lutheran College Nebraska Wesleyan University Union College if North Dakota (N South Dakota (N 5) Augustana College Huron College Mount Marty College Sioux Falls College Yankton College Wisconsin (N = 14) Alverno College Cardinal Stritch College Carroll College Carthage College Edgewood College Lakeland College Marion College of Fond Du Lac Marquette University Milton College Mount Senario College Northland College Ripon College Silver Lake College Viterbo College aName of reSponding institution omitted to protect anonymity and confidentiality of responses. APPENDIX L FREQUENCIES OF STUDY POPULATION AND RESPONDENT POPULATION BY STATE 255 Frequencies APPENDIX L FREQUENCIES OF STUDY POPULATION AND RESPONDENT 50“ POPULATION BY STATE 45 .. LEGEND Number of institutions per state in the study population ‘0 - - - - Number of respondents per state 35‘» 30 «i i \ 25 1r ' \ \ ' x l 20 .. l \ ‘f\ I \ ‘/' \ g \ / \ 15 i» l \ / \ IO (r I, \ I \ i \ ’ 5 .. I ‘\‘\ l’l \ I \V / O 3 3 g ‘3 S 3 E .3 3 3 E 2 s — «z 2 g ~ 5 x a E r 8 ° 3 2 8 Figure L-l.--Frequencies of study population and respondent population by state. 256 APPENDIX M FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENT POPULATION BY ENROLLMENT CATEGORIES 257 APPENDIX M FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENT POPULATION BY ENROLLMENT CATEGORIES 65 i 55 i. ‘1 LEGEND: Enrollment data obtained from returned questionnaires 50 » \ - ~ - - Enrollment data per The Education Directory, Colleges E'UnivErsities. l97B-79 editiOn ‘5<> \ 60