Campus Sustainability Report

Introduction & Overview | Students | Employees | Security & Safety

Knowing we cannot realistically separate the social from the environmental and economic impacts of our institution, we nonetheless want to determine if the quality of life of our constituents is improving, stable, or declining. We must recognize that averages and data that we aggregate into large wholes do not necessarily tell us how individuals within the organization are impacted. And we want to be attentive to how our choices here have impacts beyond our campus boundaries and into the future. With that sensitivity in mind we note in this chapter trends across a range of indicators that might help give us a sense of our social well-being and our current trajectory.

Social indicators are clustered around the two major stakeholders of our community – students and employees. Students are our primary reason for being and an increasing source of our revenue. Generally, we look at their numbers as a sign of overall health of our institution. While we understand that growth is not always a wise pattern, declining enrollments or admissions standards could signal a warning that the university might become unsustainable. Besides the sheer number of students who apply, are accepted and choose to enroll, the indicators we have chosen include signals of their academic readiness for university learning (high school GPA, SAT scores, ACT scores), their diversity (gender and ethnicity), their geographic origins and study (residency and study abroad), their ability to adapt and learn (retention, graduation rates, degrees conferred), their involvement beyond the classroom (service learning, intramural sports, student organizations, student hours worked), and their health (alcohol use, stress, depression, etc.). We also look briefly at access to learning about sustainability through classroom experiences. Issues that impact students on an economic level – employment during school and after graduation, tuition costs, and student loan debt – are placed with the economic indicators.

Employees include faculty, staff, and administration. They both depend upon the university as a livelihood and are the lifeblood of the institution. While there are clear differences among employee groups in terms of skill level, responsibilities, education level, hours worked and wages, there are numerous areas where we want to look at employees as a single family. Average age and seniority, sick leave, injuries, wages and benefits are important to us all. We have taken a deeper look at the changing face of our faculty - key drivers in our teaching, research, and outreach missions. We note not only diversity by gender and ethnicity but also the distinction between tenure-system and fixed-term faculty appointments. As measures of job satisfaction, we consider trends in seniority, contributions to the university, and formal grievances.

Some social issues clearly are not distinctive between employees and students but still are important measures of our social health. Chief among these is a sense of security and safety (felonies, misdemeanors, ordinance violations and workplace injuries).

Back to Top

The makeup of our student body is an important part of our sustainability. MSU seeks to be a diverse learning community and to attract talented students from around the state, nation and world. With a special commitment to educate residents of our own state, MSU seeks to create learning environments that include students from around the country and the world.

Rationale for Indicators - Since educating students is a key part of our mission and a growing source of our operating income, the number, quality, and residency of interested students is crucial to our long-term future. The graphs below highlight key trends in this area.

How are we doing? - Since our 2003 report the number of first-time undergraduate applicants numbers has dropped and leveled off, paralleling a national demographic trend. While this hasn’t diminished enrollment of first time-students, it is a trend we will need to watch carefully.

Figure 1 First-Time Undergraduate Applicants

The readiness of our freshmen for university learning, as measured by high school GPA and ACT scores, is quite high. High school GPA climbed steadily through 2003 and seems to be holding above a 3.55 average.

Figure 2 Mean H.S. GPA for Enrolled Freshmen

Likewise, ACT scores for entering freshmen continue their steady upward trend, reaching 24.4 for 2005 entering freshmen.

Figure 3 Mean Composite ACT Scores for Enrolled Freshmen

Increases in undergraduate enrollment have been seen for Michigan residents, non-residents, and international students alike. MSU still enrolls and graduates more students from Michigan than any other four-year institution. This is a double-edged sword, since while we are funded in significant part by state revenues and want to welcome as many students from Michigan as possible, the declining state support combined with higher revenues generated from out-of-state students puts pressure on us to seek a heavier percentage of non-resident students.

Figure 4 Undergraduate Enrollment by Fee-Based Residency

While the increase has been steady for undergraduates, we have seen a 17% slide in graduate student admissions since a high point in 2002. This decline is troubling in that national trends show graduate enrollment increasing 6% between 2002 and 2004 (latest available figures). Professional school enrollments have stayed steady for residents, with slight increases in enrollments by non-residents and international students.

Figure 5 Graduate Enrollment by Fee-Based Residency

MSU continues to hover at the bottom of the Big Ten in student:faculty ratio, tied with Indiana University in fall 2004 at 18:1. This is a slight improvement from the 2003 ratio of 19:1.

Figure 6 Students per Faculty Member

Rationale for Indicator- When Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 in the November 2006 election, they evidently thought that higher education institutions in Michigan were sufficiently diverse that affirmative action was no longer necessary. Noting any changes subsequent to that decision will be important in the years ahead. Diversity in higher education has been shown to lead a vibrant learning environment. As the make-up of our nation, state and global family continues to evolve, it is important that groups of qualified students do not become excluded from pursuing a higher education. In a society that espouses freedom and justice for all, equal opportunity is a bedrock principle that must be protected.

How are we doing? - There continues to be a steady increase in the percentage of women students enrolled at all levels of the university. Women constituted 54.4% of students enrolled at MSU in 2005. This is consistent with the national average of 55.1%.

Figure 7 Graduate and Undergraduate Enrollment by Gender

The undergraduate student body has increased its diversity since 2001 with slight increases for each non-white group.

Figure 8 Undergraduate Minorities

With the significant decline in graduate enrollment in 2005, there was a corresponding decline in the number of minority students enrolled in graduate and professional schools.

Figure 9 Minority enrollment in Graduate and Graduate Professional Programs

Rationale for Indicators - Simply admitting a diverse and talented group of students is not a sufficient measure of our sustainability. Retaining students and seeing them complete their degrees are also important measures. This indicator is a highly significant one for both measuring student satisfaction with the university and ensuring a stable source of revenue.

How are we Doing? - Retention and graduation rates continue to increase for almost all groups. First-year retention rates reached 90% for the first time with the 2004 entering class. Likewise, the five-year graduation rate reached a zenith of 68% in 2004. Minority retention and graduation rates also hit all-time highs with 87% and 52%, respectively. Graduation rates for minorities still lag significantly from the overall graduation rate, a difference of 16%, but the overall trend is still moving upward.

Figure 10 First-Year Retention and Graduation Rates by Entering Class

Degrees conferred increased with the exception of masters’ degrees, which showed a decline that parallels a drop in graduate enrollment in recent years.

Figure 11 Degrees Conferred

Rationale for Indicator - MSU has long been an institution connected to the broader global community. Our researchers are active on every continent, with particularly strong commitments to Africa. MSU graduates are one of the leading sources for Peace Corps volunteers and Fulbright Scholars. As our global community continues to become more interdependent, our graduates need to appreciate and understand our rich complexity.

How are we doing? - MSU is a destination for many international students, enriching the learning experience for our domestic students, and MSU has increased efforts to provide international learning experiences for more students. Since our last report, MSU student participation in study abroad experiences has increased nearly 40%, making MSU a national leader in providing foreign study experience.

Figure 12 Study Abroad Participants

MSU student participation in study abroad programs has grown by 33% since 2001. Survey data from the Office of Study Abroad shows that 43% of students indicated MSU’s study abroad program influenced their decision to attend MSU. James Madison leads all colleges in percentage of students participating (85%), with Arts and Letters next (at 39%). Europe is the favored destination (52%). The United Kingdom is the most popular nation to visit, attracting twice the number of students that visit second-place Mexico.

Rationale for Indicators - Current research on learning confirms that significant learning experiences take place beyond the classroom and laboratory walls. Understanding how the world works by participating in it is a basic principle behind service learning and involvement in student organizations. Other benefits include developing new relationships, enhancing one’s resume, acquiring group skills, and being able to test preconceived perceptions in real world settings.

How are we doing? - Service Learning activity increased 33% in the past two years, with at least 60% of those hours related to courses. The numbers below are recorded by MSU’s Service Learning Center. We believe these numbers are lower than the actual number of students involved as many faculty assign community involvement projects without connection to the Service Learning Center.

Figure 13 Service Learning

Student involvement in organizations on campus is high. Organizations come and go with constant student turnover. The following list notes organizations with some element of a sustainability theme. Member numbers are not available as no formal membership in most of these organizations is required or collected.

Table 1 Registered Student Organizations

Rationale for Indicator - Student participation in sporting activity acts as an indicator of both health and social cohesion.

How are we doing? - Student participation in team intramural activities continues to remain high with nearly one-third of our students participating in team sports. Since 2001-02, participation has increased by 4% for team sports.

Figure 14 Total Number of Intramural Sports Participants

The most popular team sport is basketball, but outdoor soccer has passed touch football as the second favorite team sport, followed by football, softball, and indoor soccer.

Figure 15 Top 5 Intramural Sports in Number of Participation

Rationale for Indicators - While we tend to think of traditional college-age students as being at the height of good health, there are numerous concerns and stresses that affect students. Healthier students are more likely to perform better academically and restrain health care costs. Changes to establish healthier lifestyles and to forestall health problems will ensure a more sustainable future for students and the institution.

How are we doing? - In a recent review of MSU’s results from the National Collegiate Health Association (NCHA) survey trends, a number of significant findings emerge after comparing results between 2000 and 2006. “The percentage of respondents who indicated that they never used cigarettes has generally increased since 2000, while the percentage who reported smoking cigarettes on more days also declined.”

Figure 16 Students Who Reported Using Cigarettes in the Past 30 Days

We also find “there has been a general decrease in the number of days respondents reported consuming alcohol in the previous month.” Fewer students report that they drive after having five or more drinks, with the percentage declining from 8.5% in 2000 to 3.8% in 2006. The percentage of those who admit that they drive after drinking five or more drinks declined by more than half, from 10.2% in 2000 to 4.9% in 2006.

Figure 17 Students Who Drive After Having 5 or More Drinks

There were no statistically significant changes between the 2000 and 2006 surveys in the percentage of students reporting that they experienced various health-threatening consequences from drinking. There was nonetheless a decline in those reporting having forced or unprotected sex; if the numbers are indeed reflective of the entire student body, it would represent 688 fewer instances of forced sex and 3,111 fewer instances of unprotected sex per year in 2006 than in 2000.

Some troubling trends include the doubling of the percentage of respondents who reported having anxiety problems, from 5.4% in 2000 to 12.4% in 2006.

Figure 18 Students Who Reported Anxiety Within the Last School Year

There was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of respondents who reported having a problem with depression, anxiety disorder, or seasonal affective disorder from 2000 (25.1%) to 2006 (31.6%) and a corresponding increase in the percentage of those who reported their academic performance suffered as a result (47.3% in 2000 to 54.5% in 2006).

While there was no change in the percentage of students who reported having a problem with internet use and computer games, there was a steady rise in the percentage of respondents who reported having some type of academic problems as a consequence. This percentage doubled, from 15.7% in 2000 to 30.6% in 2006. There was also a significant increase in the percentage of those reporting stress who suffered academically as a result – 36.9% in 2000 vs. 42.7% in 2006. If this seems hard to understand, the differences are based on responses to different questions in the survey.

Figure 19 Students Who Reported Their Academic Performance Affected by a Health-Related Problem

Rationale for Indicator - Ideally each student leaving MSU with a degree in any field would be knowledgeable about sustainability and able to look at complex issues through a sustainability lens – one that sees the interdependencies between the environmental, social, economic, and aesthetic at the same time. We could infer a graduate’s literacy in sustainability from, at a minimum, their passing courses that would focus on the wholeness and interdependencies that sustainability requires. While we do not have a quantitative measure we might prefer, we can look at what is currently available to students though the curriculum and note changes in opportunity.

How are we doing? - Since our last report, new programs and courses continue to be added to the curriculum. As this is written, there are two new specializations under development – degree programs that cut across multiple disciplines and departments – specifically dealing with sustainability. One focuses on sustainable food systems and the other is a broad based undergraduate sustainability program. In addition, the Environmental Science and Public Policy (ESPP) program connects 160 faculty from all colleges through graduate education and research. The Science, Technology, Environment and Public Policy (STEPP) program for undergraduates is up and running since the last report. In addition, there are specializations in ecological economics, international development, peace and justice studies, and women, justice and the environment. An examination of the schedule of courses indicates a significant increase in courses dealing with “environmental” and “sustainability” themes since data collected in our last report. Such courses have almost tripled in the last six years!

Table 2 Courses with Sustainability Themes

Back to Top

Our employees are the life-blood of the university. They make sure the lights are on, the paperwork is correct, and the university is in compliance with many regulations and laws. They are the educators creating courses and academic programs, the researchers creating new knowledge, and the intellectual foundation of the community. They run our residences, feed us, provide health services, and maintain our park-like grounds.

Rationale for Indicators - While any organization needs to look for efficiencies in how it utilizes employees, reductions in the numbers of employees might signal a decline in quality of services. Additionally, the makeup of the institution should reflect in some ways the human family of which we are a part. Just as the diversity of our student body is a strong indicator of a sustainable community, so too is the diversity of faculty and staff. It is clearly important to have educators who provide role models for students.

How are we doing? - Benefit-eligible employees (half –time or more) reached a nadir in 2002-03 with 10,233, but there has been a 3% decrease as of 2005-06. MSU is seventh in the Big 10 in number of full-time employees, despite being third in student population. Our student-faculty ratio as of 2005 of 19:1 is tied for last among Big Ten schools with Indiana (see page 16). The sharpest decline among employee groups has been among clerical and technical staff.

Figure 20 Total Faculty and Staff Eligible for Benefits

Temporary employees and those working less than half-time (and thus ineligible for benefits) reached a high point in 2001-02 with 5,104. But those numbers decreased 5% by 2005-06, paralleling the decline in full-time staff. These declines in the numbers of employees have occurred while student populations have remained largely unchanged.

Figure 21 MSU Support Staff Temporary Employees

While the total number of faculty has increased slightly (3%) since the 2003 report, the number of women faculty has increased (12%) more noticeably. They currently make up 37% of the faculty, up from 34% in 2001. Those numbers are not in line with the makeup of the student body which, as noted earlier, includes a slight majority of women. The rise in percent of women faculty is likely a response to a combination of factors, including equal opportunity/affirmative action programs and an increased number of women pursuing college degrees and careers in higher education.

Figure 22 Total Faculty by Gender

The total number of tenured faculty has declined steadily for the past decade. Despite the overall decline in tenured faculty positions, the numbers of tenured women and minority faculty have risen substantially. Minority tenure-stream faculty increased by 41% between 1994 and 2005, while the number of women holding tenure-stream appointments grew by 25% for the same period.

Figure 23 Total Tenured System Faculty

While the total number of faculty has grown slightly, the number of tenured system faculty has declined. The difference is in the growth of temporary or “fixed-term” faculty. While in many cases a fixed-term faculty member may be re-hired for numerous periods, typically they are hired on one- to three-year contracts. The number of fixed-term faculty has increased significantly since the data reported in our 2003 report - by almost 19% between 2001 and 2005. There are a number of factors affecting this trend. These include the increased use of professionals who still practice – medicine, law, and journalism, efforts to create institutional flexibility to changing demands, and constrained budgets. The increased use of fixed-term faculty nationwide has raised concerns about job security and quality for these people.

Figure 24 Total Fixed Faculty

Rationale for Indicators - Age, seniority of employees, and sense of job security can indicate the level of experience, institutional knowledge, job satisfaction, and commitment to the institution. Maintaining a quality workforce with continuity is crucial for a sustainable institution.

How are we doing? - Our employees as a whole are a mature lot, with the average age of employees hovering around 46. This would suggest we may be reaching a balance of those retiring versus those entering our work force at an earlier age. Baby boomers will likely begin retiring in the next decade, which would reduce the average age.

Figure 25 Average Staff Age

Average seniority is increasing, which means that people are staying at MSU longer. Current average seniority is 13.4 years, up 11% since the last report. Given that average age is steady as reported above, it appears employees are coming to MSU younger and staying longer. While seniority is an indicator of job satisfaction, it might also reflect potential increased concerns for job security in a higher unemployment market.

Figure 26 Average Seniority

This sense of job security is another indicator of a sustainable workplace. Budget cuts forced significant reductions across the board for members of collective bargaining units in 2003, with the number of layoffs diminished since then, but not entirely a thing of the past. Faculty reductions have been accomplished through attrition. As some faculty leave or retire, their positions are not refilled.

Figure 27 Support Staff Layoffs

Many indicators may hint at job satisfaction including seniority, employee contributions, wages and benefits. One that stands out as a poignantly negative indicator is the number of grievances. For those represented by collective bargaining units, we can trace the number of formal grievances and arbitrations pursued by employees. The trend since 2001 shows a steady decline.

Figure 28 Number of Third Step Grievances and Arbitrations

For faculty and academic specialists (non-collective bargaining employees), there is a separate process handled by the Faculty Grievance Office (FGO). Overall trends show decline or a steady state from a decade ago with the exception of a sharp rise in the past year of inquiries. Note that the numbers reported are discrete individual cases rather than the number of contacts. FGO office attributes most recent anomalies as likely due to how these are recorded. Also, the slight upswing in conferences is explained by additional efforts in this area to resolve grievances without resorting to formal hearings.

Figure 29 Faculty Grievances Settled, Inquiries, and Conferences

While wages capture everyone’s attention, the benefits can often make a difference in recruitment and retention of employees. MSU has a strong but expensive benefit package. Perhaps one indication of the strength of the package is looking at comparisons of how we stack up with other Big Ten conference schools for faculty salary and compensation. For example, while MSU ranks in the lower tier for average faculty salary, it jumps to fifth when benefits are added for total compensation.

One measurable benefit is university assistance for education. This includes payment for credit courses on and off campus and workshops and skill development training programs hosted on and off campus. It does not include the additional 50 percent tuition reduction benefit employees get for their children who attend MSU. (For more detail see Economic Indicators, p.89)

The number of courses employees have taken for credit and been reimbursed for has declined since 2002-03, paralleling the decline in expenditures.

Figure 30 MSU Credit Courses Reimbursed Through Ed Assist

Without a national health care plan, individuals and families rely heavily on employer-sponsored health care. MSU’s health care coverage is utilized by over 90% of eligible employees. Retirees comprise a sizable size of that benefit group, with a very high participation rate among those eligible. Total number of employees and retirees using this benefit has decreased slightly in the past few years. While our employee population has declined, as reported earlier, the number of retirees eligible and taking advantage of the benefit has increased, thus tempering any costs savings. (See the economic system for MSU’s trends in health care costs.)

Figure 31 Employees and Retirees Eligible and Enrolled in Health Care

Back to Top

Rationale for Indicators- Healthy, safe employees and students are not only more productive, they reduce health care expenditures while enhancing their own quality of life.

How are we doing? - We noted in our last report that employee injuries have remained steady between 1990 and 2001. Recently there has been a significant dip, with a 13% decline between our last report and 2005. In part, this is likely a response to increased training around health and safety programs. What that graph does not show and what we did not measure in the earlier report are the types and seriousness of injuries. Data collected over the past three years suggests a 68% decrease in the number of MIOSHA related injuries, which tend to be more serious injuries.

Figure 32 Total Number of MiOSHA Reportable Injuries for Staff, Student and Faculty Workers

This conclusion is supported by a similar reduction during this period in the number of workers’ compensation claims. Surprisingly, costs increased despite a reduction in the number of injuries. The increase in the total cost of claims is tied to a combination of several large claim settlements, increasing health care costs, and a few very severe injuries as reported by our Occupational Health and Safety staff.

Figure 33 Workers Compensation Claims with Cost

A listing of the most reported injuries below by number, loss of work time, and cost depicts the collective impact of injuries on our institution.

Figure 34 Top 10 Injuries by Number of Reported Injuries 2000-2005

Measuring time lost, the following graph depicts yet another view of the issue. Falls from ladders lead injuries for time lost per injury. (See Economic Indicators, p.91 for more data on leading injuries by cost.)

Figure 35 Top 10 Injuries by Days Off of Work Per Incident 2000-2005

Employee illness, on the other hand, has increased. Average hours of sick leave have increased 5% since our last report, although it dipped in the past year. Sick employees not only suffer reduced quality of life, but their productivity is reduced while increasing costs for the institution. At the same time, sick employees should stay home to prevent spreading illness and to heal sooner.

Figure 36 Average Hours of Sick Leave per Year

Rationale of Indicators - Feeling safe and living in an environment where the vast majority live by the rules allows for personal development and is essential to adequate quality of life. It also reduces the cost of crime, which includes enforcement, investigation, and prosecution.

How are we doing? - Serious crime, as noted by felonies, has continued to decline since its high point in 1998. This has been a priority program for the DPPS since that time. The most frequent felonies reported are larcenies, burglaries, and malicious destruction of property, fortunately not violent crimes against people.

Figure 37 Total Felonies

Minor crimes reported has a more irregular pattern. 2005 showed a decrease in the number of misdemeanors reported after two successive years of increases. Leading misdemeanors are alcohol (almost half of all misdemeanors), larcenies of lower value, and malicious destruction of property.

Figure 38 Total Misdemeanors

The pattern of university ordinance violations has been more irregular, with a large spike in 2000 and smaller spikes in 2004 and 2005.

Figure 39 Total University Ordinance Violations

Back to Top