Skip Navigation
Back 

adfinal

adfinal

Final Report - Administrative Management Task Force

The following pages represent the final report of the Administrative Management Task Force, as
is also reflected in the minutes of the September 17, 1996 meeting of the Task Force.

             Task Force on Administrative Management
                        Minutes of Meeting
                        September 17, 1996



Members Present
Dr. Walton H. Owens, Chairman
Mr. Bill Dauksch
Dr. Leroy Davis
Ms. Susan Miller
Dr. James Morris
Dr. Ron Thurston
Mr. David White

Members Absent
Ms. Paula Harper Bethea
Mr. Bill Stern

Technical Research Advisor
Dr. Phil Moore, USC-Columbia

CHE Resource Staff
Mr. Charles D. FitzSimons
Ms. Lynn W. Metcalf
Mr. John E. Smalls

Institutional Representatives, Other
Guests
Ms. Camille Brown, CHE
Mr. Michael Brown, CHE 
Ms. Mary Jo Cook, Lander
Mr. David Fleming, Clemson
Dr. Carol Garrison, USC-Columbia
Institutional Representatives, Other
Guests (continued)
Mr. Frank Gilbert, CHE 
Ms. Maggie Hicks, CHE
Dr. McLean Holderfield, SBTCE
Dr. James Hudgins, Midlands TC
Dr. David Hunter, USC-Columbia
Mr. James Kirk, USC-Columbia
Mr. Raghu Korrapati, CHE
Mr. Nelson Lindsey, CHE
Ms. Diedre Martin, USC-Aiken
Dr. Harry Matthews, USC-Columbia
Mr. Gary McCombs, Coll. of Charleston
Mr. J. P. McKee, Winthrop
Mr. Robert Mellon, SBTCE
Mr. Robert Mignone, Coll. of Charleston
Mr. Tim O'Dell, SBTCE
Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE
Mr. Tim Rogers, House Ways & Means
     Staff
Mr. Fred R. Sheheen, CHE
Dr. Michael Smith, CHE
Ms. Janet Stewart, CHE
Ms. Janice Trawick, Winthrop
Dr. James Vincent, Winthrop
Mr. Ed Zobel, SBTCE

The Task Force on Administrative Management met for its final meeting at the Commission on
Higher Education in the second-floor conference room at 1:30 p.m. on September 17, 1996.  

     1. Consideration of Minutes of Meeting on September 11, 1996
     
     The Task Force approved the minutes of the meeting on September 11 as written.
     
     
     2. Performance Indicators Previously Discussed
     
     a.(5)(B) Use of best management practices: Dr. Owens noted that the Task Force
     had received information on a number of different approaches for this measure,
     including a check-list of best management practices developed by the University of
     South Carolina.  Mr. Dauksch asked if the staff had been able to obtain any
     information on consulting firms that survey business and industry to determine best
     management practices and, more specifically,  those firms which specialize in higher
     education.  Dr. Smith stated that the staff was unaware of firms which currently
     specialize in this type of evaluation for higher education, but noted that accounting
     firms sometimes conduct these surveys in higher education settings.  Task Force
     members asked Mr. Kirk (USC-Columbia) about the source of best management
     practices included on the check-list.  He responded that the list was derived from a
     number of sources including the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
     (SACS), the regional accrediting agency for higher education institutions in the State. 
     
     It was moved (White), and seconded (Morris) that the Task Force adopt the check list
     presented by USC-Columbia as a basis for determining best management practices. 
     The task force discussed ways in which the check-list could be used to measure best
     management practices.  Mr. Dauksch suggested that using an outside consulting firm
     to determine best management practices would be more appropriate than using a
     check-list with compliance reported by the institutions. Concerns about the cost of
     using outside consultants were expressed by several members and attendees. 
     However, the Task Force noted that adopting the check-list as a measure would not
     preclude the Commission or an institution from hiring an out-side consultant to
     evaluate compliance with the check-list if funds were available.  It was noted that no 
     provision for additional funding has been included in the Commission's or the
     institutions' budgets for implementation of this or other performance measures. 
     After further discussion on how the check-list would be used to measure best
     management practices, it was agreed that each institution would document and report
     to the Commission its compliance with the practices on the check-list and that the
     Commission would evaluate whether the measure had been met.  The Task Force
     voted (4-2) to adopt the check-list as a basis for determining best management
     practices.  The task force then moved (Morris), seconded (White), and voted that the
     evaluation of best management practices be conducted annually.
     
     b.(8)User Friendliness of Institution (C) Accessibility to the institution of all
     citizens of the State:  Dr. Owens reminded the group that he had requested staff and
     others to bring to this meeting specific suggestions on ways to measure
     "accessibility."   CHE staff presented a measure which included suggestions made
     by the task force at its meeting on September 11.  The measure would be the ratio of
     an institution's accumulated points for each of  four accessibility components to the
     maximum points allowed for the measure.   Dr. Owens asked if the Task Force
     wished to vote on each part of the measure separately or on the measure as a whole. 
     Mr. White requested that each part be considered separately.  There being no
     objection, Dr. Owens so ordered.
     
     A. The percent of other-race students enrolled at an institution - It was moved
     (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that component A. be approved as written.
     
     B. The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in counties where no
     public institution, or campus of a public institution is located - Institutional
     representatives suggested that this component should reflect the level of the course
     work being offered.  For example, the measure should not preclude a public four-year
     institution from offering upper division or graduate course work  in a county served
     by  public two-year institution.  In response to these concerns, it was moved (White)
     that B. be amended to read "The total number of credit hours generated off-campus
     in places where no comparable program is offered by a public institution.  The
     motion was not seconded.  After some objection over the use of the word "places"
     instead of  "counties," it was moved (Morris),  seconded (White), and voted that the
     component B. be approved as follows: The total number of credit hours generated off
     campus in counties where no comparable program is offered by a public institution.
     
     C. The total number of credit hours generated in-state through distance education - 
     It was moved (Morris), seconded (Miller), and voted that component C. be approved
     as written.
     
     D. In-state, undergraduate, tuition and required fees are not more than X% of S.C.
     personal per capita income. It was moved (White) that the measure be the ratio
     without stating "not more than X%." The motion was not seconded.  It was moved
     (Morris), seconded (Davis), and voted that component D. be approved as written.
     
     c.Discussion of appropriate use of total funds vs. unrestricted funds in
     measuring performance indicators (1)(A) and (5)(A) and(5)(D): Dr. Owens asked
     the staff to present the data obtained from the Advisory Committee on Finance and
     Facilities on using total funds vs. unrestricted funds in these measures.  Mr. Smalls
     reported that the data from the institutions indicated that the use of total funds would
     be appropriate for the research universities (Clemson, USC-Columbia, and MUSC)
     while the use of unrestricted funds would be appropriate for all other four-year and
     two-year institutions.  Task force members expressed concern about the latitude in
     classifying data for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
     survey categories, and suggested that the college and university business officers
     develop a uniform system of classification.  Mr. White suggested that a footnote be
     added to the measure to ensure consistent reporting by the institutions.  It was moved
     (Morris), seconded (Miller), and voted that total funds be used for the research
     universities, and unrestricted funds be used for all other four-year and two-year
     institutions when measuring performance indicators (1)(A), and (5)(A) and (5)(D). 
     
     It was moved (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that the Advisory Committee
     on Finance and Facilities develop a uniform system of reporting financial data on the
     IPEDS reports.
     
     
     
     d.Discussion of using undergraduate vs. total students in indicators (6)(D) and
     component A in (8)(C): The Task Force agreed that these indicators are applicable
     to undergraduate students only and instructed the staff to insert the wording where
     appropriate in the write-ups.
     
     3. Final Task Force Approval of All Performance Indicators:
     
     ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
     (1) Mission Focus
          (A) Expenditures of funds to achieve institutional mission
     Measure: Percent of instruction research, public service, academic support,
     student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant,
     scholarships and fellowships expenditures compared to total educational and
     general (E&G) expenditures (excluding funds transfers).  It was moved (Morris),
     seconded (White), and voted that this measure be approved as written.
     
     (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration
          (A) Sharing and use of  technology, programs, equipment, supplies and
               source matter experts within the institution, with other institutions, and
               with the business community
     Measure: The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people
     served, or the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects. It was
     moved (Dauksch), and  seconded (Thurston) that this measure be changed to the ratio
     of  the number of people served to an institution's FTE students.  Institutional
     representatives stated that the intent of the Legislative Study Committee  in this
     measure was to look at dollars saved.  Task force members also stated that the dollar
     impact should be considered.  The motion failed.  It was moved (Morris), seconded
     (Miller), and voted that word "or" be changed to "and" and that the measure be
     approved as follows: The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects,
     partners, people served, and the total financial impact of the
     cooperative/collaborative projects.
     
          (B) Cooperation and collaboration with private industry
     Measure:  The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people
     served, or the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects.  It was
     moved (Davis), seconded (Miller), and voted that the word "or" be changed to "and,"
     and that the measure be approved as follows: The total number of
     cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people served, and the total
     financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects.
     
     (5) Administrative Efficiency
          (A) Percentage of administrative costs as compared to academic costs
     Measure: Academic costs as a percentage of total E&G expenditures compared
     to administrative costs (institutional support) as a percentage of E&G
     expenditures.  It was moved (White), seconded (Miller), and voted that this measure
     be approved as written.
     
          (B) Use of best management practices
     Measure: The evaluation by CHE of each institution's best management
     practices based on a CHE approved list of criteria, reported by the institutions,
     and evaluated by CHE annually. It was moved (Morris), seconded (White), and
     voted that this measure be approved as written.
     
          (C) Elimination of unjustified duplication of and waste in administrative
               and academic programs
     Measure: Percent of administrative or academic costs saved by the identification of
     and elimination of unjustified duplication and waste in administrative and academic
     programs as identified and reported by the institution.  It was moved (Morris),
     seconded (White), and voted that the word "or" be replaced with the word "and," and
     that the motion be approved as follows: Percent of administrative or academic
     costs saved by the identification of and elimination of unjustified duplication
     and waste in administrative and academic programs as identified and reported
     by the institution.
     
          (D) Amount of general overhead costs
     Measure: General overhead cost per FTE student. Mr. White questioned
     including physical plant operation and maintenance in the definition of overhead cost
     for this measure because of the variance in age and condition of buildings on the
     different campuses.  It was suggested that the physical plant operation and
     maintenance (O&M) data could be adjusted to consider the age of buildings.  It was
     moved (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that wording to index O&M data by
     age of construction be added to the definition and that the measure be approved.
     
     (6) Entrance Requirements
          (A) SAT and ACT scores of student body
     Measure: Percent of first-time entering freshmen who meet or exceed the minimum
     average SAT or ACT score for the appropriate sector within the state.  It was moved
     (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that the wording be changed to clarify the task
     force position on "benchmark" vs. "average"  and that the measure be approved as
     follows: Percent of first-time entering freshmen who meet or exceed the
     benchmark SAT or ACT score for the sector within the state.
     
          (B) High school class standing, grade point averages, and activities of
               student body
     Measure: The percent of first-time entering freshmen with a high school GPA
     equal to or greater than X. It was moved (White), seconded (Thurston), and voted
     that this measure be approved as written.
     
          (C) Postsecondary non-academic achievement of student body
     Measure: It was moved (Dauksch), seconded (Davis), and voted that this indicator
     be referred to the Steering Committee for reassignment to a more appropriate Task
     Force.
     
     
          (D) Priority on enrolling in-state students
     Measure: The ratio of enrolled in-state undergraduate students to total
     undergraduate students. It was moved (White), seconded (Dauksch), and voted that
     this measure be approved as written.
     
     (8) User Friendliness of Institution
          (C) Accessibility to the institution of all citizens of the state
     Measure: The ratio of an institution's accumulated points for accessibility to
     maximum points allowed for measure: A. The percent of other-race
     undergraduate students enrolled at an institution = X points; B. The total
     number of credit hours generated off-campus in counties where no comparable
     program is offered by a public institution = X points; C. The total number of
     credit hours generated in-state through distance education = X points; D. In-state, undergraduate tuition and required fees are not more than XX% of S.C.
     personal per capita income = X points.  It was moved (Thurston), seconded
     (White), and voted that this measure be approved as written.
      
     Dr. Owens stated that the staff would provide Task Force members and guests with a copy of the
minutes and final Task Force changes to the measures by the end of the week. 

Dr. Owens expressed his pleasure in working with the Task Force on such a difficult task.  He noted
that he would be remiss if he did not state his concern with developing these measures within such
a short time frame.  He stated that these types of decisions needed at least a year of careful
consideration, but he recognized that the Task Force  was working under a legislatively  mandated
time frame.  Dr. Owens remarked that two items had been brought to the floor that this Task Force
could not address.  These were (1) concerns about consideration of the number of students (size of
an institution) in any of the measures, and (2) differential costs for various programs, i.e. the cost of
offering baccalaureate programs as opposed to doctoral programs.  However, those two items were
not addressed in the legislation.  In short, he noted, this Task Force had a tremendous responsibility
in developing these measures.  The Task Force has done its very best in making these suggestions
to the Steering Committee and the Sector Committees. Dr. Owens then thanked the members of the
Task Force, CHE staff, Commission members, and all of the institutional representative who
participated in these meetings. 
  
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

                                   Respectfully Submitted,



                                   Lynn W. Metcalf
                                   Recorder

                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT                                                            
                                             

Critical Success Factor:           (1) Mission Focus

Task Force: Administrative 
(Category)

Performance Indicator: 
(Number and Title)            (A) Expenditure of funds to achieve institutional mission

Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96     
Date of Steering Committee Approval:              

Measure:       Percent of instruction, research, public service, academic support, student
               services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant,
               scholarships and fellowships expenditures compared to total educational and
               general (E&G) expenditures (excluding funds transfers).  

               example:  Instruction expenditures
                         total E&G expenditures

Definition:         Expenditures include restricted and unrestricted funds for the research
                    universities (USC-Columbia, Clemson, and MUSC);  unrestricted
                    expenditures for all other four-year and two-year institutions; and exclude
                    fund transfers for all institutions.

Method of Reporting:     Computed from annual IPEDS Finance Reports as standardized by the
                         Advisory Committee on Finance and Facilities.

                                                            ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT                                                                                                                   
Critical Success Factor:           (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration 

Task Force: Administrative
(Category)                         

Performance Indicator:             (A) Sharing and use of technology, programs, equipment
(Number and Title)            supplies, and source matter experts within the institution and
                              with other institutions, and with the business community

Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96                              

Date of Steering Committee Approval:             

Measure:  The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners,  people served, and
          the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects.      
     
                 Project A, serving X people, with a financial impact of $X
               +Project B, serving X people, with a financial impact of $X
          Total       Projects 2, serving XX people, total financial impact of $XX             

Definition:         Financial impact is defined as dollars saved or dollars earned by a particular
                    collaborative/cooperative venture. 
               Information will be based on institutionally defined projects, partners, and
               people served for paid and non-paid services.  


Method of Reporting:     Information institutionally collected by survey instrument and reported over
                         a two-year period to provide an average annual support base from which
                         benchmarks can be developed. 




                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration

Task Force: Administrative                                            
(Category)

Performance Indicator:        (B) Cooperation and collaboration with private industry, the
(Number and Title)             business community, and government.         

Date of Task Force Approval:   9/17/96                           
                                                            
Date of Steering Committee Approval:             

Measure:       The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, or people
               served, and the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative
               projects.      

                 Project A, serving X people, with a financial impact of $X
               +Project B, serving X people, with a financial impact of $X
          Total       Projects 2, serving XX people, total financial impact of $XX             


Definition:         Financial impact is defined as dollars saved or dollars earned by a particular
                    collaborative/cooperative venture. Survey instrument basis for data
                    collection.  Information will be based on institutionally defined projects,
                    partners, and people served for paid and non-paid services.  



Method of Reporting:     Information institutionally collected by survey instrument and reported over
                         a two-year period to provide an average annual support base from which
                         benchmarks can be developed. 
                                                            

                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (5) Administrative Efficiency           
(Category)

Task Force: Administrative                         

Performance Indicator:        (A) Percentage of administrative costs as compared to
(Number and Title)             academic costs
 
Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96                                             
          
Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       Academic costs as a percentage of total E&G expenditures compared to
               administrative costs (institutional support) as a percentage of total E&G
               expenditures.

               academic costs     vs.     administrative costs
               total E&G Exp.            total E&G Exp.

Definition:         Expenditures for total E&G , academic, and administrative costs include
                    restricted and unrestricted funds for the research universities (USC-Columbia, Clemson, and MUSC); unrestricted funds for all other four-year
                    and two-year institutions; and exclude fund transfers for all institutions. 
                    Academic costs are defined as expenditures for instruction, research, and
                    academic support; administrative costs are defined as institutional support.

Method of Reporting: Calculated from the annual IPEDS Finance Report as standardized by the              Advisory Committee on Finance and  Facilities.


                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (5) Administrative Efficiency
(Category)

Task Force: Administrative
                          
Performance Indicator:             (B) Use of best management practices                  
(Number and Title)

Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96       
                          
Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       The evaluation by CHE of each institution's best management practices based
               on a CHE approved list of criteria, reported by the institutions, and evaluated
               by CHE annually.  


Definition:         Criteria based on checklist of best management practices agreed upon by CHE
               and the institutions.



Method of Reporting:     Institutions will report and document compliance with approved list, and
                         submit  annually for evaluation by CHE.




                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (5) Administrative Efficiency
(Category)

Task Force: Administrative
                          
Performance Indicator:             (c) Elimination of unjustified duplication of and waste in
(Number and Title)             administrative and academic programs.

Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96                   
                                                                 
Date of Steering Committee Approval                              

Measure:       Percent of administrative and academic costs saved by the identification of
               and elimination of unjustified duplication and waste in administrative and
               academic programs as identified and reported by the institution.

               administrative costs saved     and      academic costs saved
               total administrative costs         total academic costs

Definition:         Duplication and waste as defined by the institution; administrative costs
                    include institutional support and operation and maintenance of physical plant;
                    academic costs include costs for instruction, research, and academic support.

Method of Reporting:     Institutions will identify, document, and calculate savings resulting from the
                         elimination of unjustified duplication and waste in administrative and
                         academic programs at the institution.  This documentation will be reported
                         to the Commission on an annual basis.



                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (5) Administrative Efficiency           
(Category)

Task Force: Administrative  
           
Performance Indicator:             (D) Amount of General Overhead Costs                  
(Number and Title)

Date of Task Force Approval:    9/17/96 
                                                  
Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       General overhead cost per FTE student. 

               general overhead costs
                  total FTE students

Definition:         General overhead costs divided by FTE students.  General overhead costs are
                    defined as institutional support expenditures plus expenditures for operation
                    and maintenance of physical plant (indexed by age of construction). 
                    Expenditures include restricted and unrestricted funds for the research
                    universities (USC-Columbia, Clemson, and MUSC); and unrestricted funds
                    for All other four-year and two-year institutions.  FTE is defined as total
                    annual full-time equivalent students. 
          
Method of Reporting:     Calculated from the annual IPEDS Finance Report, as standardized by the
                         Advisory Committee on Finance and Facilities, and from CHEMIS data.


 

                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (6) Entrance Requirements
(Category)
                    
Task Force: Administrative
                          
Performance Indicator:             (A) SAT and ACT scores of student body
(Number and Title)


Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96
     
Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       Percent of first-time entering freshmen who meet or exceed the benchmark
               SAT or ACT score for the sector within the state. (This measure is not
               applicable to the technical colleges)

Definition:         Benchmark score to be set by Sector Task Forces.  Scores of first-time
                    entering freshmen at each institution to be used in calculating the percent
                    meeting or exceeding the benchmark will include: (1) the combined score
                    (verbal and math) of the student's SAT score (recentered) and/or ACT
                    composite scores (converted to SAT equivalent) of all first-time entering
                    freshmen (including provisional students).

number of First-Time Entering Freshmen w/ a combined SAT score that meets or exceeds benchmark
                    total first-time entering freshmen

Method of Reporting:     Benchmark to be set by Sector Task Forces; Percent first-time freshmen
                         meeting or exceeding benchmark computed from CHEMIS data.

TASK FORCE CONCERNS:

     Application of this measure should not be "across the board" but rather should take
     into consideration an institution's mission, minority participation and demographic
     data.  Benchmarks and application of this measure should take into consideration the
     differences between individual institutions within a sector.  
                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (6) Entrance Requirements
(Category)

Task Force: Administrative  
                          
Performance Indicator:             (B) High school standing, grade point averages, and activities
(Number and Title)            of the student body

Date of Task Force Approval:   9/17/96 

Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       The percent of first-time entering freshmen with a high school GPA equal to
               or greater than X.
               (This measure is not applicable to the technical colleges.)

     number of first-time entering freshmen with a high school GPA equal to or greater than X
                                             total first-time entering freshmen

Definition:         High school GPA is defined as a student's high school grade point average 
                    as defined for CHEMIS; High school standing is defined as high school rank
                    and activities of the student body are defined as extracurricular non-academic
                    activities.  Because data are not available for measuring high school rank and
                    extra-curricular activities, no weight should given to these parts of the
                    indicator.

               
Method of Reporting:     CHEMIS Data.  Data element defining GPA to be developed for CHEMIS. 


                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (6) Entrance Requirements
(Category)

Task Force: Administrative 
                          
Performance Indicator:             (C) Postsecondary non-academic achievement of  student body
(Number and Title)

Date of Task Force Approval:   9/16/96    
                                                  
Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             


Measure:       THE TASK FORCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
               BELIEVES THIS INDICATOR IS NOT RELEVANT TO ENTRANCE
               REQUIREMENTS  AND REQUESTS THAT THE STEERING
               COMMITTEE REASSIGN THIS INDICATOR TO A MORE
               APPROPRIATE CATEGORY AND TASK FORCE.

Definition:         



Method of Reporting:     


                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (6) Entrance Requirements
(Category)

Task Force:   Administrative  
                          
Performance Indicator:             (D) Priority on enrolling in-state students
(Number and Title)

Date of Task Force Approval:   9/16/96        
                                                  
Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       The ratio of enrolled in-state undergraduate students to total undergraduate
               students.

                 in-state undergraduate students
                   total undergraduate students

          
Definition:         Number of in-state undergraduate students enrolled in the institution divided
                    by total undergraduate students enrolled at the institution and compared with
                    the appropriate percent of undergraduate in-state students for each institution
                    within a sector, with in-state residents defined by the residency regulations
                    in the S.C. Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 


Method of Reporting:     CHEMIS Data.  Data Element for true residency consistent with APA to be
                         added to CHEMIS.


TASK FORCE CONCERNS:

     Application of this measure must take into consideration the mission of an institution
     and the desired level of diversity in the student body.  No single benchmark would 
     apply across the board.  


                                 
                    ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factor:           (8) User Friendliness of Institution
(Category)

Task Force:   Administrative 
                          
Performance Indicator:             (C) Accessibility to the institution of all citizens of the State
(Number and Title)

Date of Task Force Approval: 9/17/96   

Date of Steering Committee Approval:                             

Measure:       The ratio of an institution's accumulated points for accessibility to maximum
               points allowed for measure.        
               Accessibility points:
               A. The percent of other-race undergraduate students enrolled at an institution
               = X points
               B. The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in counties where
               no comparable program is offered          by a public institution = X points
               C. The total number of credit hours generated in-state through distance
               education = X points
               D. In-state, undergraduate, tuition and required fees are not more than XX%
               of S.C. 
                    personal per capita income = X points

                              A+B+C+D                   
               Total points allowed for measure

Definition:         A. Other race for institutions other than historically Black colleges and
                    universities (HBCUs) would be African-American students; other race for
                    HBCUs would be White, non-Hispanic students.
               B. Off-campus instruction is defined as courses offered off-site, in a
               classroom setting, with an instructor present, and which are not offered
               through electronic means.  Comparable programs refers to courses offered at
               comparable course levels, i.e., associate level courses vs. baccalaureate level
               courses vs. graduate level courses.
               C. Distance education is defined as instruction offered off-site via electronic
               means.
               D. Personal per capita income as reported by the S.C. Office of Research and
               Statistics and published in the most recent South Carolina Statistical
               Abstract.

Method of Reporting:     Computed from CHEMIS data, institutional reports, and South Carolina
                         Statistical Abstract.