Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ

I. INTRODUCTION

Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s higher education system is nearing the end of its fifth year under the new governance system created by the Higher Education Restructuring Act. Shortly after taking office in January 1994, Governor Christine Todd Whitman called for a new governance structure for higher education in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ, with greater autonomy for colleges and universities at the heart of her recommendation. To help formulate the requisite statutory changes, the Governor appointed a 15-member advisory panel drawn from the ranks of higher education administration, the K-12 community, the Legislature, the private sector, and other organizations concerned with higher education in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ. After public hearings and deliberation, the panel made specific recommendations for a tripartite governance structure designed to increase institutional autonomy and accountability and better serve state needs.

The Legislature concurred with the panel and used its recommendations as the foundation for a new statutory governance structure. The resulting July 1994 restructuring act declares that eliminating unnecessary state oversight will spur institutional creativity and innovation and that placing greater decision making and accountability at the institutional level will better enable Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities to fulfill their missions and to serve statewide goals. It further declares the need for state level coordination as well as cooperation among the institutions to achieve institutional excellence and effectiveness in addressing state needs and providing an affordable and accessible system of higher education in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ.

With the enactment of the restructuring law, the former Board and Department of Higher Education were eliminated. Dissolving these entities reduced the extent of state involvement in institutional matters and removed a level of bureaucratic review. A new shared governance structure was established. The tripartite, entrepreneurial governance model consists of the Commission on Higher Education, the Presidents’ Council, and the individual institutional trustee boards.

Under the new paradigm, boards of trustees are ultimately responsible for the governance of their institutions. They are specifically charged with responsibility for institutional policy and planning, student tuition and fees, admissions, degree requirements, investment of institutional funds, legal affairs, and a budget request for state support. The institutional governing bodies also have authority for academic programs, personnel decisions, and initiatives for improving institutional facilities. To document institutional outcomes, the public institutions prepare annual accountability reports, for which the Commission approves the reporting format.

The role of the Commission in the new paradigm includes general systemwide coordination, research, advocacy, planning, and policy development, with advice from the Presidents’ Council. The Commission recommends higher education initiatives and incentive programs to the Governor and Legislature and submits an annual coordinated budget policy statement to the Governor and Legislature. It also has authority for institutional licensure, university status, institutional requests to exceed or change their programmatic mission, and new degree programs referred by the Presidents’ Council as unduly costly or unduly duplicative. In addition, the Commission works with the Department and State Board of Education, other state agencies, and the federal government; approves higher education capital and equipment projects funded through state bonds; administers several state grant programs; and holds regulatory authority in statutorily designated areas.

The Presidents’ Council is responsible for new program review; formation of regional and cooperative programs among institutions, including policies for transfer and articulation; and recommendations to the Governor, Legislature, and Commission on higher education policy issues. It also makes recommendations regarding funding for higher education and student assistance programs. The Council has an advisory role on programmatic mission changes and new degree proposals that exceed an institution’s mission or are unduly duplicative or expensive and, upon referral by the Commission, provides recommendations on institutional licensure and relicensure. The Council also assists and advises the Commission on statewide planning and policy initiatives. The Council was originally comprised of the presidents of the 45 public and independent Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities receiving direct state aid; 1996 amendments expanded the membership to include four representatives of the 11 proprietary and religious institutions. An Executive Board, also created by the act, is authorized to carry out much of the Council’s work.

The restructuring act also created the Office of Student Assistance as a separate entity to administer the student assistance programs established under the Student Assistance Board and the Higher Education Assistance Authority, with policy advice from the Commission in several areas. A new law enacted in March 1999 consolidates these entities into the Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, which will include one Commission representative among its members; the chair of the merged student aid policy board will serve as a member of the Commission.

The restructuring act requires the Commission and the Presidents’ Council to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the new structure and submit a report to the Governor and Legislature on or before July 1, 1999. As was done for the required interim assessment of restructuring (at the two-year mark), a Restructuring Assessment Committee was formed consisting of Commission members, presidents representing the four collegiate sectors, and Commission staff.

The Committee reviewed and summarized the activities and accomplishments of the five years since the new governance structure was established. In addition, the Committee did a survey to gather perceptions regarding the new structure. The Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University assisted in questionnaire design and development, as well as data collection. Legislative leadership, Commission members, the Presidents’ Council, institutional governing boards, student assistance professionals, faculty governance and union leaders, institutional administrators, and student government leaders were surveyed. While the survey was not conclusive due to a relatively low response rate and a disproportionate number of returns from some groups, it did provide some interesting data to assist in the overall assessment (See Section IV).

The Committee’s assessment also benefited from input provided by over 150 participants in an all-day, invitational conference on restructuring. Governor Whitman delivered the keynote address, a state and a national panel discussed the implementation of the new structure, and break-out groups discussed specific areas identified by the survey respondents as needing improvement (See Section V).

The restructuring act specifically requires the five-year assessment to include profiles for each public college and university. These data, most which are available from databases maintained by the Commission, are the same as the core indicators in the annual institutional accountability reports; a special survey collected the data that were not readily available. Appendix 4 provides a two-page profile of each of the 31 public colleges and universities.

In addition, the following aggregate data regarding Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s public and private colleges and universities provide a general profile of the system for which the new governance structure was created.

Students: In fall 1998, Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities enrolled a total of 326,291 students, 183,337 full-time and 142,954 part-time. Undergraduates were 85% of the total, and Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ residents accounted for 92% of the undergraduates.

Student Assistance: Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ ranks second among all states in the amount of need-based student aid provided per full-time undergraduate student. In FY 1998, 57,313 undergraduate students received Tuition Aid Grants, of whom 13,472 also qualified for Educational Opportunity Fund grants. The state’s four merit-based scholarships provided aid to 10,858 students.

Undergraduate Student Profile: In the fall of 1998, minority students constituted 30 percent of all undergraduates enrolled in New Jersey public and independent institutions. Female students account for 57 percent of undergraduate enrollment. Sixty percent of undergraduate students are enrolled on a full-time basis.

Faculty: In fall 1998, Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities employed a total of 11,332 full-time faculty. Females constituted 37 percent of all faculty; minorities constituted 16 percent of the total. Tenured faculty accounted for 62 percent of the total. The institutions also employ adjunct faculty. With a total of 11,348 part-time faculty members in fall 1997, the statewide ratio of full-time to adjunct or part-time faculty was virtually 1:1.

Programs: Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities currently offer over 2,900 degree programs in 232 different fields.

Accreditation: Forty-six Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ institutions are accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. The other 10 institutions are accredited by appropriate specialized accrediting bodies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

In an effort to gauge the perceptions of Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s higher education community, the Restructuring Assessment Committee worked with the Center for Public Interest Polling of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University to develop a questionnaire to survey views on higher education restructuring in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ. The questionnaire was sent to 475 selected participants, and 145, or 31 percent, responded.

The community college sector had the largest representation (40%) among respondents, followed by the independent colleges/universities, the state colleges/universities, and the public research universities.

Counting the category "other," there are 16 possible organizational affiliations that were listed in the questionnaire. These categories have been collapsed into six broader groups: Commission members, the financial aid community, the Presidents' Council, other institutional employees and student leaders, trustees, and "other" (mostly non-Commission state officials). It should be noted that multiple affiliations are possible. The largest group of respondents (42%) is other institutional employees and students. Respondents connected with student assistance are the second largest, followed by presidents, trustees, non-Commission state officials, and Commission members, in that order.

A detailed analysis of the survey and the annotated questionnaire indicating the percentage response to each item on the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. The Committee identified the following general themes from the survey responses.

• As a general rule, positive views of restructuring outweigh negative views; but many see restructuring as only a partial success. Relatively few consider it to have been harmful.
• There are predominantly positive views of improvement in innovation, institutional decision making, institutional accountability, and coordination among institutions. On the other hand, views of improvement in resources are predominantly negative. A plurality rates collaboration between the Commission and the Presidents' Council as excellent or good.
• The community colleges and the state colleges/universities are more frequently positive than the public research universities and the independent colleges and universities. However, there are several other patterns of differences among the sectors.
• With regard to type of organizational affiliation, all of the groups except people involved in financial aid are frequently positive. Financial aid respondents are the most likely to have no opinion.
• Commission members are positive about most issues. They are negative about improvement in resources and institutional coordination.
• The presidents rate improvement in innovation/creativity and institutional coordination as high. They rate improvement in resources negatively.
• Both Commission members and presidents tend to rate collaboration/communication between their organizations as good but not excellent.
• There is a tendency for those with the most positive or the most negative perceptions about changed or unchanged conditions to be more likely to assign credit or blame to restructuring.
• Those groups with fewer positive views on a particular question tend to have more respondents with no opinion on that question.
• The numbers of respondents with no opinion are surprisingly large across a range of issues, especially on specific questions regarding whether restructuring was responsible for a perceived change or lack of change.
• The current (1998) restructuring survey, along with the 1996 interim survey, directly and indirectly document a considerable degree of stability in attitudes toward restructuring since 1994. Rowan University's 1998 report directly reaffirms this stability.

On the broadest summary question, about equal numbers of respondents—roughly two-fifths each—believe that the Higher Education Restructuring Act has been a positive change or that it has been a mixed change. Only one-tenth perceives a negative change, and even fewer have no opinion.

Assessing the degree of improvement in six areas, a majority of respondents see some or a great deal of improvement in innovation and creativity in dealing with higher education issues, as well as similar levels of improvement in institutional decision making, accountability of institutions and their boards of trustees, and coordination and collaboration among higher education institutions. By contrast, a majority see not much improvement, no improvement, or a decline in resources to support policy recommendations. With regard to fair and equitable systemwide policy development and decision making, no clear majority exists, and a high percentage of respondents have no opinion (16%).

Regarding collaboration and communication between the Commission and the Presidents' Council, 45% of the respondents rate it excellent or good, while 31% rate it only fair or poor. One reason for the lack of overall consensus is that 24% of the respondents have no opinion.

The survey identifies 13 objectives of the restructuring act, and solicits perceptions of how well they have been achieved. In addition, the questionnaire lists nine responsibilities that are shared by the Commission, the Presidents' Council, and institutional boards of trustees, and asks respondents to indicate how well they think each entity is fulfilling them. Respondents were also asked to indicate if the ratings they gave were based on the changes in the structure of higher education.

An examination of the responses to these items provides an interesting pattern of assessments, based on the particular respondents’ perceptions. In order to organize the possible ratings, the committee devised a matrix with four possible combinations of ratings:

1. positive evaluations ("excellent" or "good") attributed to the restructuring;
2. negative evaluations ("only fair" or "poor") attributed to restructuring;
3. positive evaluations not attributed to restructuring; and
4. negative evaluations not attributed to restructuring.

The responses for the three respective entities (Commission, Presidents’ Council, and boards of trustees) were pooled for each responsibility. The following matrix indicates where the majority of those who responded rated each of the objectives and responsibilities among the above four possible combinations. Note that respondents who indicated they had "no opinion" are excluded from the matrix, although they are considered in the rest of the narrative analysis.

The Restructuring of Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ Higher Education: An Interim Report to the Governor and the Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ Legislature, which the Commission published in July of 1996, also contained a survey component. There are both similarities and differences between the two surveys. A key difference is that while the first survey sought to measure changes in attitudes and perceptions that had taken place since the time the restructuring was announced, the second survey is concerned with current attitudes. Restructuring had solid support in 1996, as it does now; sector differences that were found in 1998 were also present in 1996. However, one organizational group — institutional trustees — seems to have become more positive and more willing to express an opinion now than before. Also, another group — Commission members — seems to have become somewhat less positive (though they remain as positive as any of the groups except the non-Commission state officials).

The Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994 set high expectations for Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s new tripartite governance structure, and the survey identified a number of key areas perceived as excellent or good as a result of restructuring. However, the survey was intended to gauge perceptions of a broad constituency, and it did not address all of the one-time and ongoing responsibilities assigned to the Commission on Higher Education, the Presidents’ Council, and institutional governing boards. This section addresses some of the most significant goals achieved in the first five years under the new governance structure, largely as the result of the level of cooperation and collaboration that developed within the higher education system.

At the individual colleges and universities, reduced state regulation has enabled boards of trustees to focus on institutional goals and be more responsive to student and community needs. On a state level, the synergy that has developed among college and university presidents, and between presidents and the Commission and other stakeholders has resulted in many significant accomplishments that benefit students, institutions, and the state. The mechanism for collaboration between the Commission and the Presidents’ Council was not defined by the restructuring act and it has evolved over the years. In the past two years, the Commission’s Executive Committee and the officers of the Presidents’ Council’s Executive Board have forged a more productive working relationship. There is also frequent informal dialogue between the Commission’s executive director and the chair of the Presidents’ Council on a variety of issues, and each body’s regular monthly meetings provide an opportunity for representatives of the other to offer more formal input. In addition, both organizations have been represented on every major task force and committee formed since restructuring.

Much of the first year following restructuring was focused on completing statutorily required reports on funding and tuition, collaboration between higher education and K-12, student aid administration, and collective bargaining and civil service in the state college and university sector. These reports, submitted to the Governor and Legislature, have informed ongoing policy and planning efforts, and several of the specific recommendations have been successfully implemented.

The restructuring act also required the development of a master plan for higher education. With significant involvement from the Presidents’ Council and the rest of the higher education community, the Commission adopted Looking to the New Millennium: Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s Plan for Higher Education in October 1996. The first long-range plan since 1981 established a vision for Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ higher education (see Appendix 2) and made recommendations to guide colleges and universities, and the state, in achieving that vision.

The first update of the long-range plan, released for public comment in March 1999, includes a status report on the original recommendations, as well as new recommendations intended to define a strategic course by which Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s system of colleges and universities will become among the world’s best. The major recommendations that have been implemented from the original plan are:

• enactment of a $55 million Higher Education Technology Infrastructure Fund that has allowed 45 eligible institutions to accelerate their technology plans and spurred systemwide collaboration to create the Virtual Academic Library Environment, the Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ Virtual University, and the proposed interinstitutional broadband network backbone;
• a significant increase in operating aid for community colleges as well as an increase in the state bonding limit for community college facilities (both were first recommended in the 1995 funding and tuition report);
• a bond proposal that provides $550 million for capital improvements at four-year colleges and universities (first recommended in the 1995 funding and tuition report);
• development of a broad-based transfer and articulation agreement and a proposed computerized system to facilitate student transfer;
• creation of a $1 million grant program to improve graduation and transfer rates for low-income or minority students; and
• completion of a statutorily required study of the capacity of the higher education system.

In addition to these important outcomes from the long-range plan, the Commission, Presidents’ Council, and institutional boards have addressed a number of important ongoing goals, which include:

• enhancing accountability and information about higher education through annual institutional and systemwide reports as well as the development of a performance funding initiative for public institutions;
• developing and implementing the processes for licensure, new program review, and the designation of university status;
• strengthening the three grant programs administered by the Commission (Special Needs, College Bound, and Education of Language Minority Students) by working closely with institutions and the advisory boards for each to implement key recommendations that came out of comprehensive reviews of the programs;
• strengthening the EOF program by working closely with the EOF Board of Directors and institutional program directors to improve administration and enhance state-level planning; and
• increasing collaboration with business, K-12, and government agencies.

A full list of the major activities implemented since the enactment of the Higher Education Restructuring Act is included as Appendix 3.

An important aspect of the five-year assessment of restructuring was a daylong conference that provided a unique opportunity for Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s higher education community to focus on both the improvements fostered by the new governance structure and the challenges that lie ahead. On January 22, 1999, over 150 institutional leaders, trustees, faculty and union representatives, students, Commission members, legislators, and others gathered at Rider University to hear presentations and participate in discussions about higher education restructuring in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ.

Governor Christine Todd Whitman shared her views on restructuring and her vision for Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ higher education. A panel of legislators and others instrumental in the passage of the Higher Education Restructuring Act discussed their perceptions about restructuring and the challenges higher education faces in the future. In addition, a panel of higher education policy experts from throughout the country placed Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s governance reform in a national context and also discussed how institutions and the state might build upon the early successes of restructuring.

Following the presentations, participants broke into small groups to discuss the specific aspects of restructuring that received less-positive ratings in the survey.

While the Governor believes it may be too soon to judge whether restructuring has been successful, she noted that it has improved coordination and collaboration within the higher education system and made it more responsive to students, the business community, and the state. She indicated that presidents are working together in an unprecedented way, and the increased autonomy has unleashed institutional creativity, while maintaining the state’s commitment to quality, access, and affordability. She said the higher level of autonomy is accompanied by accountability, such as the state’s new performance funding initiative.

The panelists agreed that increasing trustees’ responsibility for institutional vision, quality, and accountability is desirable and appropriate, and that more focus is needed on how trustees fulfill their important role. The legislators agreed that trustees, as well as college and university presidents, can be very effective advocates for their institutions and the system as a whole. Panelists also noted that colleges and universities must respond to the public agenda and play a role in addressing critical state needs and social issues. While Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ is seen as a national leader in need-based student aid, legislators see a need to provide more financial assistance to middle-class residents.

The panel of national experts praised what has been accomplished in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ under the new governance structure, although they cautioned against focusing on the governance structure rather than statewide needs and long-term goals. They also noted that many of the issues identified as needing improvement reflect broad national trends, not problems with Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s new governance structure. Although survey respondents related issues such as budget, master planning, and coordination of programs to restructuring, such issues pose challenges for all states, regardless of their governance structure. The panel also stressed that to be most effective, the higher education community must approach advocacy with clear common goals and a strong central voice.

Despite a closer working relationship between the Commission and Presidents’ Council in areas related to budget development and advocacy, some participants still expressed concerns that the governance structure lacks a central advocate for higher education. There was general agreement that both the Commission and Presidents’ Council should play a stronger and more visible role as advocates for higher education. The two entities should work together to define roles and expectations and develop a plan and agenda for advocacy. Some felt the absence of cabinet-level status for the Commission is detrimental to advocacy efforts. More trustee involvement in advocacy is also needed. Participants agreed that New Jersey should do more to raise public awareness about the benefits/importance of higher education and to market its higher education system. Expanding and strengthening relationships with business and industry are an important part of this effort.

As noted above, participants expressed concern that while FY 2000 was an improvement over past years, the budget development process had often lacked coordination, and as a result, was not as effective as possible. They stressed the need for the Commission and Presidents’ Council to coordinate efforts and speak with one voice, being proactive early in the process rather than reactive. They agreed that the state must provide adequate, consistent, predictable support for base budgets, and should consider multi-year budgeting, or at least multi-year budget planning.

The breakout groups recommended that the Commission increase its efforts to communicate the substance of the long-range plan and its relevance to various constituencies. Some expressed dissatisfaction with the plan itself. Others felt the plan and updates should be well circulated and referred to frequently, as a foundation upon which to base policy decisions. Institutions should seek to align their plans with the state plan. While participants believe that restructuring has allowed for broader input in statewide planning, there is not equal involvement among all institutional constituents. They said trustees should be more involved in updating the long-range plan.

Breakout group participants had differing opinions regarding coordination of academic programming. Some saw improvement and believe that the process is working; they believe that the Commission’s coordination role is appropriate and the system of checks and balances is sufficient. One group raised questions about whether there is a need to monitor/control program quality. It was suggested that the long-range plan should provide more context within which academic program decisions are made. One group suggested that the requirements for new program documentation should be reviewed and that licensure regulations also should be reviewed periodically. Others felt a need to define "unduly costly and unduly duplicative." One group felt that academic programming through distance learning may pose problems related to quality and systemwide efficiency in the future.

Participants agreed that the Commission should play a role in identifying statewide issues and the "public interest," as well as in spurring and assessing higher education’s responsiveness. However, some expressed concern that statewide coordination must be balanced with sensitivity to institutional mission, as well as the need for institutional flexibility. Areas identified as needing additional statewide focus include: transfer and articulation, outmigration/inmigration, collaboration with K-12, and outcomes assessments and criteria.

Another issue raised by the breakout groups was whether the Presidents’ Council can maintain strong leadership in the future given its heavy reliance on volunteerism, and the need for a common orientation/understanding of all presidents on issues related to restructuring and the vision for higher education. Another concern was the political nature of the trustee appointment process, especially in light of the trustees’ expanded role.

When the Higher Education Restructuring Act was enacted in 1994, people in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ and across the nation questioned whether the new structure could work. Could college and university presidents move beyond the needs of their individual institutions to address statewide issues? Could a body of lay members with little or no background in higher education successfully guide state coordination and planning? Or, absent a cabinet-level representative and an extensive higher education bureaucracy, would the state ultimately abandon its commitment to access and affordability?

While the assessment of the new governance structure and its component entities points to some operational areas that need attention, the experience of the past five years has demonstrated clearly that the tripartite structure is workable and desirable. Since July 1994, New Jersey’s higher education system has both labored and prospered under the new governance structure. The tripartite arrangement spurred institutional autonomy, collaboration, and innovation within a coordinated higher education system. Considerable progress has been made toward system and state goals due to significant efforts on the part of presidents, trustees, the Commission, and others in the higher education community.

With a profound commitment to make the new governance structure successful, the Commission and Presidents’ Council embraced their respective and joint responsibilities and undertook them energetically. As a result, they made concerted efforts during the first two years to increase systemwide collaboration and communication, to complete statutorily required studies and reports, and to establish required processes and regulations. There was a synergy that drove those efforts, and the resulting policy recommendations, processes, and procedures established the framework for the many accomplishments over the past five years.

While the various higher education entities embraced their respective and joint responsibilities immediately, the relationships between those entities have evolved and improved over time. For example, the recently increased level of communication between the Commission’s Executive Committee and the officers of the Presidents’ Council has greatly improved budget development and advocacy efforts.

Given the focus on institutional autonomy in the new structure, there is a natural tension between campus interests and the interests of the system and the state. While individual institutions rightfully embraced the opportunity to move forward expeditiously, without the burden of excessive regulatory oversight, the coordinating entities attempted to guide institutional plans and policy with statewide planning and initiatives.

The Commission on Higher Education is also faced with the need to balance institutional and statewide interests. As the coordinating agency for higher education, the Commission engages in planning, policy development, research, and advocacy to meet higher education and statewide goals established by the restructuring act and through subsequent policy and law. The restructuring act specifically created the position of executive director of the Commission as a non-cabinet position appointed by the Commission rather than the Governor, as the most appropriate means to deal with the inherent tension between the needs of the institutions and the state.

The non-cabinet status of the executive director has been questioned by some, suggesting that higher education does not have a sufficiently strong voice and level of importance within the administration. Others believe that higher education has maintained a strong working relationship with the Governor and her staff as evidenced by the Governor’s implementation of several Commission recommendations and her frequent inclusion of the executive director at cabinet meetings and affairs. In fact, the lines of communication between the Commission and the Governor’s office, as well as with the Treasurer, are open and positive.

There are some responsibilities within the structure that require attention, and in some cases the draft long-range plan update addresses them. One of those concerns is the adequacy of the long-range plan itself. While significant strides have been made in implementation of initiatives identified in the long-range plan for higher education, there is a need to move the plan beyond the identification of individual recommendations and develop a strategic course to achieve the plan’s vision. The draft long-range plan update addresses that need, using the existing plan as a framework and defining the course to make New Jersey higher education competitive with the best in the world. The plan’s structural design for regular update and review will provide appropriate means to monitor progress and revise the course if necessary.

In another area, the assessment of the structure confirmed the importance of the role of trustees in overseeing institutional matters and fulfilling the missions of their colleges and universities, as well as in striving to meet statewide goals in cooperation with other institutions and the coordinating entities. Clearly, trustees are volunteers serving individual institutions, and while they are not necessarily statewide spokespersons for higher education, their advocacy for their own institutions plays a critical role in fostering an understanding of the overall value of the investment in higher education and the system as a whole.

A last suggestion to enhance operations within the governance structure concerns the statewide coordination of new programs and mission expansion. While the review process for new programs has fostered flexibility and the more timely delivery of new programs, the issue of lack of coordination of academic programs statewide was identified in a 1998 survey and at the January 1999 Restructuring Assessment Conference as an area in need of improvement.

As a final comment, while the restructuring assessment confirms the validity of the current higher education governance structure, it is the actions and relationships of those who operate within the structure that are critical to its success. The early commitment and synergy that resulted in significant accomplishments and collaboration under the new structure have lessened somewhat as the years passed. While there continues to be a strong commitment to the structure from some, the interest and devotion of time to making it work has subsided to a degree, as would be expected. The level of time and effort put forth initially by institutional presidents and volunteer Commission members was extraordinary in light of their respective responsibilities for running an institution or maintaining another full-time occupation. While the level of effort needed now to effectively operate the structure is less intense, there is a need for strong leadership and commitment, which is dependent largely on volunteerism; the governance structure requires it to be effective. It also requires a common understanding among presidents, trustees, and the Commission members on issues related to restructuring and the vision for higher education.

Specific opinions. Of the 13 objectives of the restructuring act, a majority of respondents rate the attainment of six as excellent or good. These positive responses are led by those referring to student access to higher education or to institutional flexibility in establishing new academic programs. In the remaining seven cases there is no consensus between excellent/good and only fair/poor. The mixed pattern is in part due to high percentages of respondents expressing no opinion; these percentages range from 11% on systemwide coordination of higher education to 53% on institutional legal representation.

On the nine responsibilities of the Commission/Presidents' Council/trustees, there is a moderate tendency for ratings of these entities to move in a roughly parallel fashion. All of the entities are perceived as doing well on timeliness in addressing issues and timeliness in making decisions, though there are more respondents with no opinion in the case of the trustees. Both the Commission and the Presidents' Council do fairly well on cooperation among the various higher education entities and on availability of information on higher education. None of the entities does particularly well on K-12/higher education communication and collaboration, the budget development process, progress toward statewide master planning, coordinated systemwide advocacy, or resource sharing among institutions. However, for all entities, moderate to large numbers of respondents have no opinion with regard to these issues.

In responding to the questions regarding the 13 objectives of the act, many left them blank; the numbers range from 17 to 76. Similarly, on the nine responsibilities of the Commission, there are numerous blank responses (37-60). On the responsibilities of the Presidents' Council, blanks range from 44 to 63. Finally, for trustees, the number of nonresponses is even higher (59-72).

There is no simple relationship between respondents' positive or negative ratings on specific issues and their inclination (or lack thereof) to attribute the perceived current situation to restructuring. The difficulty of generalizing here is partly attributable to the large numbers of respondents who do not express an opinion on the role of restructuring.

The most common pattern, characterizing seven of the 13 objectives of the Restructuring Act, is for the "extreme" ratings—"excellent" or "poor"—to be associated with a greater inclination to credit or blame restructuring. This pattern emerges for the areas of access and affordability, institutional accountability, and coordination/review of academic programming, among others. With regard to institutional program flexibility, there is a positive relationship between the favorability of the rating and the likelihood of viewing restructuring as the cause. In the case of student aid administration and trustee appointment, a negative relationship occurs: undesirable conditions are seen as having occurred because of restructuring, and desirable conditions are seen as having occurred despite restructuring. In three instances there is no pattern.

As far as the Commission's performance is concerned, in five instances the extreme ratings are associated with a greater tendency to cite restructuring; these include cooperation among the entities, budget development, availability of information, and systemwide advocacy. On four responsibilities there is no pattern linking ratings and restructuring. On the Presidents' Council's performance, in five instances extreme positions are linked with a higher probability of attributing the perceived current situation to restructuring; these include timeliness in addressing issues, timeliness in making decisions, cooperation among the entities, and availability of information. No pattern is evident on four responsibilities. Finally, regarding trustees, there are five instances in which the extreme ratings are associated with a greater tendency to cite restructuring; these include timeliness in addressing issues, budget development, and availability of information. On four responsibilities there is no pattern.

Proportionally more respondents in the community college sector and the state college/university sector believe that the restructuring act has been a positive change than in the public research university sector or the independent sector.

A majority of respondents in the community and state college/university sectors believe that there has been a great deal or some improvement in innovation and creativity in dealing with higher education issues. Both "a great deal" and "some" receive considerable endorsement.

A majority of respondents in the public research university and independent sectors believe that there has been "some" improvement in innovation and creativity, but none believe there has been "a great deal" of change. In all four sectors a majority believe that there has been a great deal or some improvement in institutional decision making. A majority of positive responses in the community college and state college/university sectors are "a great deal," and a majority in the public university and independent sectors are "some."

Opinions by sector do not always break down as described above. Other patterns appear as well; therefore there does not seem to be a pervasive polarization of opinions. All three public sectors are positive regarding improvement in the accountability of institutions and their boards of trustees; in contrast, the independent colleges and universities are not particularly positive about improvement in this area. The community colleges are by far the most positive sector with respect to resources to support policy recommendations. The community colleges, public research universities, and independent colleges and universities are positive about coordination and collaboration among higher education institutions, while the state college/university respondents are divided on this issue. Finally, the community colleges and public research universities are positive about fair and equitable systemwide policy development and decision making, while the other sectors are considerably less so.

With respect to collaboration and communication between the Commission and the Presidents' Council, the community colleges are somewhat more positive than the other sectors.

On the most general item concerning the restructuring act, all of the groups except for financial aid have a majority or near-majority who regard the act as a positive change. Financial aid is also the only group with a non-trivial percentage who have no opinion (12%). State officials are the most positive.

A majority of those in each group believe that the implementation of the act has brought about some or a great deal of improvement in innovation and creativity in dealing with higher education issues, and also in institutional decision making.

Several items elicit positive responses from every group except the financial aid community, which is also the group that exhibits the greatest tendency to have no opinion. On other issues, the financial aid community is one of two groups to have a negative opinion.

Because of the financial aid community members' strong representation among the respondents, as well as their higher than average tendency to have no opinion, this group tends to account for a considerable share of all respondents with no opinion. For example, on a range of questionnaire items, financial aid accounts for roughly 35%-50% of the "no opinions."

When the financial aid community is divided into two subsets, EOF and other, there is a tendency for the non-EOF portion to be more likely to have no opinion. There is also a tendency for the EOF portion to be more likely to have only slightly positive—or mildly negative—opinions. There are a few exceptions, however. For example, EOF is more positive than the other subgroup about resources.

State officials. Non-Commission state officials are the most positive about restructuring on the issue that is phrased in the broadest terms. They also have a majority who see some or a great deal of improvement in resources to support policy recommendations.

Commission members. On the resource issue, Commission members are the least likely to see some or a great deal of improvement. All groups except for the Commission members and financial aid have a positive view regarding improvement in coordination and collaboration among higher education institutions.

Commission members do tend to be positive on most issues; but they are not the most positive of all the groups. A majority of Commission members view restructuring as a positive change, and rate collaboration/communication between the Commission and the Presidents' Council as excellent or good. Also, a majority see a great deal or some improvement in innovation/creativity, institutional decision making, institutional accountability, and equitable systemwide policies/decisions.

The Presidents' Council. Members of the Presidents' Council are neither the most positive nor the most negative group on any issue. Exactly half of the Council members regard restructuring as a positive change. Slightly over half rate collaboration/communication between the Commission and the Presidents' Council as excellent or good. Overwhelming majorities of presidents rate innovation/creativity and coordination/ collaboration among institutions as having improved a great deal or some. Improvement in institutional decision making, and institutional accountability also receive a solid majority the Presidents' Council support. The Council shares the Commission's restrained support for improvement in equitable systemwide policies/decisions, as well as its negative view of resources (though the Council is somewhat less negative).

Other institutional employees. The views of non-presidential employees parallel very closely those of their presidents.

Trustees. All groups except for financial aid and trustees have a majority who see some or a great deal of improvement regarding equitable systemwide policies/decisions. In most other respects the opinions of trustees do not stand out in either a positive or a negative direction. An exception is the issue of institutional decision making, where trustees are the most positive group. As a general rule, the trustees' opinions follow those of the Presidents' Council somewhat more closely than they do those of the Commission; however, these two options often do not diverge substantially.

1. K-12/higher education collaboration report - adopted in April 1995, described existing school/college collaboration and established a framework for interagency collaboration on jointly defined issues.

• A joint county vo-tech/community college collaboration report led to alliances between the two entities in each county.
• An interagency Task Force on Improving Transition from High School to College is underway.
• Commission staff is working with the Department of Education to develop new regulations for teacher education programs and certification.
• Commission staff attends State Board of Education meetings.
• A representative from the State Board of Education attends Commission meetings.

2. Student aid administration report - adopted in June 1995, recommended various ways to improve student aid services and operations.

• Most recommended efficiencies to improve service to students and institutions have been implemented.
• Recently enacted legislation implements the recommended jointure of the Student Assistance Board and the Higher Education Assistance Authority and provides more flexibility for the Office of Student Assistance (OSA) in contracting for goods and services.
• The Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF) program converted to completely electronic processing of student grants.

3. Funding and tuition report - adopted in October 1995, set forth long-term recommendations for funding both public and independent colleges and universities.

• Annual budget policy statements are based on the recommendations of the joint Commission/Presidents’ Council report.
• Governor pledged and is funding $48 million over four years to move the community colleges toward the recommended partnership of 1/3 from state operating aid and 2/3 from counties and students.
• Some progress has been made in moving funding to the recommended partnership level for independent colleges and universities.
• Additional funding to balance partnership for senior public institutions has not yet been implemented.
• A $60 million increase in the state bonding limit for facilities at community colleges was enacted.
• Governor proposed increased funding for facilities renewal at senior public and independent colleges and universities.
• The dollar value of TAG awards has increased by $21.75 million.
• EOF received additional funding of $1 million for student grants and $385,000 for summer and academic program support.

4. Collective bargaining report - adopted in May 1995, recommended a means of improving the level of institutional input into state college collective negotiations and oversight for civil service employees of the colleges. While individual campuses continue to work on these issues, no state-level action has been taken.

5. Interim assessment of restructuring report - adopted in June 1996, indicated that positive views of the new structure outweighed negative and that significant progress had been made in implementing the law.

Flexibility and productivity study to address cumbersome regulations and statutes was adopted in November 1997.

• Efforts have been made to address issues in several identified areas; some efforts have been completed and some are underway.

A capacity study was conducted and the Commission adopted recommendations regarding the capacity of Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ higher education in March 1998.

• The primary finding is that there is no need to establish, close, or consolidate any institutions; institutional collaboration and competitive instructional models, such as distance learning, should be used to address pockets of unmet need. (Two efforts are underway. The Rutgers/Brookdale initiative to offer upper division programs in western Monmouth County and the joint Atlantic Cape Community College will improve access to higher education in underserved areas.)

A report on improvement of graduation/transfer rates for low-income or minority students was adopted in April 1997.

• $1 million was included in the FY 1999 state budget; 10 institutions received one-time, seed grants for model projects to improve the graduation and transfer rates of minority or low-income students.

A report on incentive funding to promote urban revitalization in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ was adopted in May 1997.

• $400,000 was included in FY 1999 state budget for planning grants, which were awarded to 13 college- or university-led collaboratives in the eight designated locales. The Commission’s FY 2000 budget policy statement recommends $8 million for implementation grants.

A report on higher education technology included recommendations regarding higher education technology and distance learning; the report was adopted in September 1997.

• A $50 million Higher Education Technology Infrastructure Bond Fund was created to help institutions accelerate implementation of their long-range plans.
• The Virtual Academic Library Environment (VALE) was established with $500,000 from the infrastructure bond fund. VALE allows academic libraries statewide to collaborate, leveraging buying power for database acquisitions and information resources.
• A Technology Advisory Committee is overseeing establishment of a statewide telecommunications network backbone that will provide 45 Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ colleges and universities with universal access to advanced digital communications. The infrastructure fund will provide $4.5 million in start-up moneys to be matched by institutional funds.
• With support from the Governor’s office, a Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ Virtual University, an initial on-line index of distance learning offerings, became operable in January 1999. The Governor proposed $500,000 for faculty development and additional course conversion.

A joint Commission/State Employment and Training Commission literacy report on the need for and current availability of adult literacy services in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ was adopted In March 1998.

• Legislation to establish the recommended State Council for Adult Literacy Education Services was enacted in May 1999.

The Educational Opportunity Fund Board adopted a five-year strategic plan in October 1997.

An update of the long-range plan is currently underway. The Commission is expected to adopt additional recommendations to help Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ achieve its vision for higher education in May 1999.

• Three out-of-state institutions were licensed to offer courses in Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ

• Seven Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ institutions were relicensed

• Two out-of-state institutions were relicensed

• Five colleges were granted university designation

• One institution was approved for change of mission

• 11 programs that exceed institutional mission were approved

• Two branch campuses were approved

• From FY 1994 through December 31, 1998, 279 new programs were implemented, most following Presidents’ Council review. Fifty-seven of the new programs were implemented by exempt institutions. Ten programs required Commission action because they exceeded the institutions’ programmatic mission.
• From FY 94 to FY 98, institutions reported discontinuance of 288 programs, 48 as a result of Upsala College’s closure.

• The Presidents’ Council proposed an automated system for tracking and reporting articulation agreements between institutions. A standing committee will trouble-shoot articulations. Improved transfer and articulation will conserve time and resources of both students and institutions.

• The Commission establishes the form and content of annual institutional reports and provides data for the institutions’ use in preparing their reports.
• The Commission issues annual systemwide reports that include updates on key institutional data.
• The performance of public colleges and universities in meeting state priorities for graduation, transfer/articulation, efficiency, and diversified revenues will determine part of their FY 2000 state aid.

• Annual institutional and statewide accountability reports are issued.
• Commission staff and institutional representatives provide information to the Legislature.
• Information resources include Commission and Presidents’ Council Web pages, quarterly Commission newsletter, and Commission and institutional op eds.
• The Presidents’ Council Committee on Advancement, Excellence, and Accountability Reporting organizes conferences and produces brochures.

• The Commission reviewed all existing regulations within the first year after restructuring; those not amended or readopted expired.
• The Commission amended existing regulations for community college personnel (substantive changes), Equipment Leasing Fund and Higher Education Facilities Trust Fund (technical amendments), and state college personnel (technical amendments, effective for one year after restructuring)
• The Commission promulgated new regulations for community college chargeback, licensure, model code of ethics for institutions, residency for tuition purposes, and infrastructure fund; pending Commission takeover of Minority Academic Careers program, new rules will be promulgated jointly with the Student Assistance Board.

Special Needs Grant Program – assessment report adopted in June 1996. Actions include:

• a new formula for allocating funds among the regional centers
• consolidation of two centers
• a new center at a public four-year institution (to serve learning disabled students)
• a permanent committee to advise on program needs and related issues.

College Bound Grant Program (transferred from Department of Education) – assessment report adopted in September 1997. Comprehensive assessment was the first since program’s 1986 inception. Actions include:

• advisory group for the program established
• new, open-competition Request for Proposal issues
• data collection system developed to enable future evaluation and improvement.

Education of Language Minority Students Grant Program – assessment report adopted in October 1997. Actions include:

• better application/proposal review processes
• a student tracking system for improved program evaluation and accountability
• a redefined role for the Council for the Education of Language Minority Students as an advisory resource

The Business-Higher Education Seminar convened to discuss how colleges and universities and the corporate sector could work together for mutual benefit. The Commission provided information for Prosperity Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ’s Business Resource Center.

Joint campus of Burlington County College and NJIT in Mt. Laurel expands access to engineering/technology offerings in South Jersey.

Twenty-eight joint or cooperative programs approved, primarily in science, health, or technological fields, which are more costly than liberal arts programs.

The Higher Education Restructuring Act requires the 1999 comprehensive assessment of restructuring to include a summary of key data for each public institution of higher education. The specific data elements are prescribed by statute. Most of the required data are routinely compiled by the Commission on Higher Education through the IPEDS and SURE systems. Commission staff collected additional required information from the individual institutions to complete the profiles that follow.

All Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ public institutions are regionally accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Therefore, this information is not included in each institution’s profile.

Profile of all students. For every institution except Thomas Edison State College, these numbers refer to fall 1998 enrollment. In the case of Edison, the numbers include all students who enrolled at any time during Fiscal Year 1998.

Undergraduate student profile. For every institution except the University of Medicine & Dentistry of Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ, this table includes only undergraduates. In the case of UMDNJ, the numbers include all students, graduate/first-professional and undergraduate, because UMDNJ is the only public institution that has more graduate and first-professional students than undergraduates.

SAT scores. SAT scores are reported in the profiles for all senior public institutions except for Thomas Edison State College and the University of Medicine & Dentistry of Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ. The reason for the exceptions is that all of Edison's entering undergraduates are transfers, as are the majority of UMDNJ's students. The Commission generally receives SAT scores only for first-time students.

Profile of full-time faculty. This indicator is omitted for Thomas Edison State College, which has no faculty of its own. The table for UMDNJ omits faculty who are paid by other institutions, such as Cooper Hospital.

Students. In the two student profile tables, non-degree-seeking students are included, while non-credit students are excluded. (Both of these statements are true for the senior publics as well, but the relative numbers involved are much smaller.)

Remediation. Institutional policies differ with regard to who needs to be tested and/or when, the testing instrument(s) used, and the cut-score(s) that are viewed as determining need for remediation. Therefore the profile data on remediation are not comparable across institutions and should not be aggregated.

Web site:

Commission Home Page