Tag: Higher education

Posted on

Increasing Institutional Diversity in the Quest for Sustainability

March 23, 2026, By Chet Haskell – Higher education in the United States has long boasted of its institutional diversity. From mega state universities to local community colleges, from elite private research universities to tiny specialized schools, this eco-system provides multiple options and avenues for anyone seeking education. At the same time, this same diversity is fluid and fragile, as demonstrated by the steady stream of closures and the prediction of many more to come.

One subset of this ecosystem – the traditional undergraduate residential liberal arts college – has faced particular challenges of late. While there numerous variations on this model, the general category can be defined through use of National Center for Educational Statistics. NCES counts a total of 1568 private non-profit colleges and universities in the United States of which 1179 are four-year institutions with 3000 or fewer total enrollments.

According to the latest NACUBO/Commonfund survey, of the 1179, there are only 80 with endowments in excess of $200 million and another 34 with endowments between $200 million and $100 million. The basic size of an endowment is of limited explanatory value, since most endowments are composed of multiple endowment with restrictions as to use.

Instead, endowment per student is often a more helpful metric. Among the 80 institutions in the NAUBO/Commonfund survey with endowment in excess of $200 million, a handful (Amherst, Williams or Pomona) have endowments valued at more than $1.8 million per student. Size matters in this case. To put this into perspective, these per student endowments are greater than the per student endowments of most of the larger institutions, except Princeton, Harvard, Yale and MIT. At the lower end of this subset, Whitworth College’s endowment is equivalent to $86,000 per student.

There is also a range of per student endowments the group between $200 million and $100 million. For example, Cottey College’s endowment value is $444,000 per students, but it has only 260 students. The other hand Elizabethtown’s endowment is equivalent to only $54,000 per student.

Even with such resources, most of these institutions are still enrollment dependent, just not entirely so. And one must remember that institutions with more than $100 million endowment represent less than ten percent of all the smaller private institutions. The remainder face much starker resource and revenue challenges and are thus indeed totally tuition dependent and facing the well-reported demographic decline in the number of high school graduates, a decline that will continue for the next decade.

Setting aside the small group with endowments over $200 million, all of the other smaller institutions under discussion must face this decline in their primary revenue source in what has become an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Not only are they similar in approach to higher education, but they face similar challenges and, strikingly, employ similar strategies in their quests for sustainability.

These conditions describe what organizational theorists Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio called “institutional isomorphism and collective rationality” in a seminal piece in 1983. They argued that institutions in the same field become more homogeneous over time without becoming more efficient. They identified three basic reasons for such changes:

Coercive isomorphism – similarities imposed externally by government policies and funding sources, as well as accreditation practices are good examples.

Mimetic isomorphism – similarities that arise from standard  responses to uncertainty such as common approaches to enrollment management and marketing.

Normative isomorphism – similarities that come under the title of “professionalism” such as standard practices for academic/faculty structures, “best practices” in student support and what has been described recently by Hollis Robbins as the “nomenklatura” process or list through which one becomes an institutional leader — most presidential searches end up looking for (and hiring) individuals with similar qualifications and experiences.

The subset of small residential undergraduate institutions based on a liberal arts curriculum would seem to represent clear examples of such institutional isomorphism. This essay will discuss why this is the case and will present a potential path out of the “iron cage” in which they are trapped.

First, the challenges facing these institutions are not new. While current policies of the Trump Administration exacerbate the difficulties that are faced, the basic challenges will remain after the current government is history. Academic institutions must take the long view and be planning today for where they want to be in five or ten years or more. A key element of any strategic plan is looking beyond the immediate and acquiring the resources needed to invest in the future.

Second, the fundamental challenge is financial in nature. As noted, most of these institutions lack significant endowments and other financial resources and are almost completely dependent on tuition from enrollments. Yet, expenses constantly rise and alternate sources of revenue are limited. At the same time, competition for enrollments has led to almost universal discounting of tuition as a pricing strategy, typically by 50% or more. Furthermore, such colleges must also confront rising employee costs, increased insurance bills and the maintenance of aging facilities. They also lack opportunities for economies of scale.

The applicability of Powell and DiMaggio’s construct is clear. Institutions have become more alike because of all three of the scholars’ isomorphic pressures. These institutions are equally dependent on Federal student financial aid and access to such aid is conditioned on accreditation by one of a set of authorized and quite similar accreditors. The quest for enrollments supports an industry of outside consultants for marketing and enrollment management, none of which are clearly distinctive in approach or results. College websites all look as if they came from t same source, with seemingly standard formats and the common photos of diverse, happy groups of students.

Professional norms and expectations for leadership positions are also of a piece. A casual review of position listings in the standard set of industry publications will demonstrate this reality, as are the similar credentials and career paths of most leaders.

It all amounts to a form of commodification. These institutions all look pretty much the same to outside observers – including large numbers of potential students and parents.

For most institutions, assured sustainability requires either steady and growing enrollments or healthy endowments and related support. The alternative is fragility and exposure to the next external crisis such as the financial collapse of 2008-09, the COVID pandemic, or, today, a national government determined to reduce support for higher education through less financial aid, loosened accreditation requirements that will increase lower quality competition, inhibit international student enrollments or undercut accessibility initiatives that encourage diversity and inclusion.

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that academic institutions have been failing in increasing numbers, sometime through forms of mergers and acquisitions with other institutions and other times through complete closure. While a merger might retain some elements of the merged institution, the losses both economic and psychic are extensive. In the case of a bankruptcy or closure, the effects are often felt more widely, particularly in small towns where a college is a form of institutional anchor.

Is it possible to break out of the pack? Can an institution gain the financial stability necessary for long term survival and prosperity through doing something different? Many institutions have sought a degree of security through consortia arrangements which typically try to lower expenses though sharing of services and which attempt to increase enrollments through providing greater options to students. Regardless of the success of such efforts, the fact is that consortia, while helpful in reducing costs and attracting incremental students, are still basically marginal in impact. The member institutions remain separate in terms of accreditation, institutional governance, budgets and leadership. Collaboration can help institutions well-placed to take advantage of consortia, particularly those within a limited geographic region. But consortium success presumes a certain degree of financial stability of the member institutions.

The Coalition for the Common Good, a new arrangement designed to engage multiple institutions with similar missions that can take advantage of the different strengths of members, began in 2023 with two founding institutions, Antioch University and Otterbein University. Basically designed as a middle ground between consortia and mergers, this initiative aspires to chart a new cooperative path among its members where institutional sustainability is nourished through collective enrollment growth. However, the Coalition is still in its infancy and can only work for certain institutions. Additional models must be developed.

Some institutions are well -placed for the exploration of partnership arrangements. They still have time and room to maneuver before facing more drastic choices. Yet, understanding and implementing the multiple details of any such arrangement is difficult and beyond the capacity of most boards and presidents. Every arrangement is different. Identifying appropriate partners is time-consuming and difficult. Actually putting together a deal and obtaining all the necessary state, Federal and accreditor approvals takes time and expertise. The costs, especially legal, are significant. An even greater expense are the opportunity costs imposed on the leadership teams which not only have to continue to manage their institutions, but also become constrained in what else they can consider. Bandwidth becomes a very real problem.

This is an opportunity for segments of the philanthropic world to consider possible new initiatives to support the small college elements of the education sector. While there will always be efforts to gain foundation support for individual colleges, there will never be enough money to buttress even a small portion of deserving institutions that face the financial troubles discussed above

Philanthropy should take a sectoral perspective. One key goal should be to find ways to support  smaller institutions in general. Instead of focusing on particular institutions, those interested in supporting higher education should look at the multiple opportunities for forms of collaborative or collective action. Central to this effort should be exploration of ways of supporting diverse collaborative initiatives.

But there is a large middle ground between consortia arrangements and mergers and acquisitions. The Coalition for the Common Good is but one such arrangement and it is still in its early stages. What has been learned from the experience thus far that might be of use to other institutions and groups? How might this middle ground be explored further for the benefit of other institutions?

Philanthropic institutions could support this work in numerous ways, first for specific initiatives and then for the sector, by providing funding and expertise to facilitate new forms of coalitions. These could include:

  • Providing financial support for the collaborative entity. While participating institutions eventually share the costs of creating the new arrangement, modest dedicated support funding could be immensely useful for mitigating the impact of legal expenses, due diligence requirements, initial management of shared efforts and expanded websites.
  • Providing support for expert advice. The leaders of two institutions seeking partnership need objective counsel on matters financial, legal, organizational, accreditation and more. Provision of expertise for distance education models is often a high priority, since many small colleges have limited experience with these.
  • Funding research. There are multiple opportunities for research and its dissemination. What works? What does not? How can lessons learned by disseminated?
  • Supporting communication through publications, workshops, conferences and other venues.
  • Developing training workshops for boards, leadership, staff and faculty in institutions considering collaborations.
  • Crafting a series of institutional incentives through seed grant awards to provide support for institutions just beginning to consider these options.
  • These types of initiatives might be separate, or they might be clustered into a national center to support and promote collaboration.

These and other ideas could be most helpful to many institutions exploring collaboration. Above all, it is important to undertake such explorations before it is too late, before the financial situation becomes so dire that there are few, if any, choices.

This middle ground is not a panacea. Some institutions will fail. The wealthy institutions will survive but they are neither numerous enough nor sufficiently accessible and affordable to compensate for the likely losses in weaker colleges. Public support, both state and Federal is unlikely to increase for the public sector institutions. Loosened accreditation will open up higher education to predators, especially for-profit in nature.

The institutional isomorphism described by Powell and DiMaggio is real in higher education and serves to undercut the strengths of an educational arena that should be characterized by creativity and diversity of approaches. Friends of higher education should be seeking alternative models of structure and organization and the philanthropic sector should have an interest in encouraging and supporting such variety.

Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields” in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio, eds. Pp.63-81, University of Chicago Press 1991

Hollis Robbins, The Higher Ed Nomenklatura, Inside Higher Ed, May 12, 2025

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers.

An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges.
He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.

Posted on

Issues of Institutional Governance in Partnerships

March 2, 2026, By Chet Haskell– Institutional governance – its form, structures, members, by-laws, and responsibilities – is an essential element of any organization. The manner by which missions are defined how decisions are made about personnel, programs, policies, and finances is crucial in every corporate and non-profit setting.

Clarity about governance is especially important in the highly regulated world of private higher education, where accrediting bodies have standards that control most aspects of institutional life, including, crucially, access to Federal government Title IV student aid, the lifeblood of most colleges and universities.

The principal accrediting bodies permit a range of possible governance models beyond that of the traditional single independent college or university. But they all come down to clarity about organizational structures and the processes by which decisions are made. For example, the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) highlights the key features of a governance model for such an institution as:

Operating with “appropriate autonomy governed by an independent board or similar authority that is responsible for mission, integrity and oversight of planning, policies, performance and sustainability”. (From Accreditation Standard 3 WSCUC)

Types of Partnerships and Governance Challenges

But how does this apply and play out in more complex organizational models? A growing number of independent institutions are engaging in (or seeking to engage in) a variety of partnership models that range from consortia to outright mergers or acquisitions. There also are efforts aimed at a middle path between a relatively simple sharing of services and complete absorption of one into another. This essay will explore some of these models, always keeping in mind basic governance principles.

A successful partnership between two academic institutions requires alignment in many areas. First, of course, the financial aspects of a potential agreement must come together. The numbers must add up and work to both partners’ advantage. The deal must pencil out.

But much more is involved than straightforward budgeting matters. There are two additional broad alignments that are necessary. One is the alignment of missions and cultures. This is essential in higher education if the multiple constituencies of any institution are to be engaged. The other is implementation. It is one thing to reach a deal. It is another to implement it, especially since making an agreement a reality is fraught with complexities, external requirements such as accreditation and the natural emotions inherent in any such plan.

Sometimes two or more institutions to agree to cost-sharing arrangements and other agreements that fall short of complete institutional involvement. There are, after all, numerous examples of multi-school consortia around the country, where cooperating institutions come to mutually beneficial arrangements while maintaining their full institutional independence. Two examples are the Claremont Consortium and the Community Solution Education System (formerly The Chicago School). As will be will be discussed below, despite being very different in formal structure, these and many other like arrangements seek to gain advantages through cooperation without ceding full institutional independence

However, moving beyond such cooperative ventures requires resolution of a variety of institutional governance challenges. The traditional model of American higher education assumes unitary institutional control resting in the hands of a self-replicating fiduciary board of trustees. As noted, this model is underscored by the standards of accrediting bodies (and, usually, state laws as well), which require clarity as to a board’s roles and structures.

Non-profit college and university boards are composed of volunteers, often alumni of the institution at hand. Indeed, paid trustees are usually forbidden. These individuals bring many things to the institution –expertise, connections, money, experienced guidance – as part of their commitment and service. There are thousands of examples of the essential contributions of these dedicated parties.

Faced with situations of institutional crisis– almost always financial in nature –these volunteer boards hold in their hands the interests and futures of students, faculty, staff, alumni and many others. Decisions they make may enable an institution to prosper and continue independently. Failure to make the right decisions may well lead to institutional closure. In times of such crisis, it often makes sense for boards to look for partnership arrangements that often lead to merger or acquisition with another institution.

Partnerships and Organizational Change

More likely is some form of merger or acquisition or similar arrangement that has one vital characteristic: a change in institutional governance, including at the board level.  As noted above, financial arrangements are necessary, but not sufficient requirements. The actual process of assessing mission and cultural fit between two institutions is much more difficult and is at the heart of any partnership with a chance of success. And even if those two conditions are met, the complex and time-consuming task of implementation requires leadership, patience and continued effort.

The board of trustees of each institution is central to all of these steps. It is here that the structure of governance is so important. In almost all cases, the role of an institution’s board will change and successful change is necessary for a successful partnership.

Mergers of two institutions are common. And even if outright acquisition is not the case, there is always a senior or dominating partner. This partner will be the financially stronger institution and, as elsewhere, those who have the gold make the rules.

While there are limited examples of true equal partnerships in higher education, the much more common model calls for one institution to cede most, if not all, of its independence to another. If the situation is an acquisition, the acquired institution will lose its independent board as it is absorbed by the other. While an advisory committee or other fig leaf arrangement may continue, the acquiring institution is fully and legally in charge and thus fully responsible for making the acquisition work.

There may be certain adjustments designed to assure the interests of the more junior institution, such as some seats on the senior institution’s board, the establishment of an entity to carry on the junior institution’s name or the transfer of certain key personnel. Sometimes there are separate endowed funds.

Crucially, the smaller institution will cease to exist legally. Its name, programs, mission and people may continue in the new structure. For example, University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy St. Louis very recently announced its acquisition by Washington University St. Louis. The latter will close the non-pharmacy elements of the former and will integrate the pharmacy programs as “its College of Pharmacy.”  The pharmacy program will continue but  University of Health Sciences St. Louis and its fiduciary board will disappear. This is common in the many cases of absorption of all or part of one institution into another.

Giving up institutional independence and control is a dilemma: become part of something bigger or face possible closure. While no institution wants to close, boards are responsible for the interests of students first and thus generally will seek a partnership solution, even if it means the end of the institution’s independence and governance.

Entering into a merger situation is not a decision to be taken lightly and is fraught with difficulty for the more junior partner. Students face disruption and change. Faculty and staff members usually face the possibility of losing their jobs, as the senior institution is unlikely to integrate the junior institution without changes. Alumni are usually distraught as part of their identity fades away. Some people may wish to fight the agreement with last-ditch (and usually unsuccessful) efforts to find an alternative path. The communities in which the institution is located will worry about the implications of change for the local economy, local institutions and citizens.

The institution’s board of trustees must deal with all this change, uncertainty, loss and, in many cases, anger. Since many trustees may be alumni, they have particularly strong emotional connections. And, at the end of the day, most such partnerships lead to the dissolution of one board. While board dissolution is also the outcome of a closure, a board can and should take solace in being able to steer the institution into a safer harbor.

There have been efforts to move towards cooperative arrangements that do not require board dissolution. A noted, there are examples of mergers of equals. One of the best known is Case Western Reserve University founded in 1967 through a merger of Western Reserve (founded 1826) and Case Institute of Technology (1880). Other examples include Carnegie Mellon University (1967), University of Detroit Mercy (1980), and Washington and Jefferson C(1865).

In another case, Atlanta University (1865) and Clark College (1879) were independent parts of the Atlanta University Center, a consortium also involving Morehouse, Spelman and Morris Brown Colleges, as well as Gammon Seminary. In 1988, Atlanta University and Clark College consolidated to become Clark Atlanta University, primarily a research institution that serves as the graduate school for the other Atlanta University Center members.

Nevertheless, such mergers of equals have not been the case in recent years. Instead, the growing financial challenges and the increased regulatory requirements have made such a model rare.

The development of consortia has been a characteristic of groups of institutions with shared interests and opportunities for savings and efficiencies through shared service agreements, as well as expanded academic opportunities for students. The Claremont Consortium involves seven co-located institutions that share various administrative services, facilities and the like, while working together to increase student options. (Their motto is: “Seven Institutions, Infinite Choices.” At the same time, they always operate as independent colleges with separate boards and accreditation. Variations on this model can be found in other consortia nationally.

A somewhat different example is the Community Solution Education System (CSES), which includes six separate, institutions, but serves as the single provider of a wide range of services including information technology, marketing, enrollment management, admissions support, and related services, all  for set fees. The CSES central operation can provide such services at scale and with great effect, thereby enabling the individual schools to grow to sustainability. Again, like looser consortia arrangements, the boards of the separate schools operate independently and their accreditations are separate.

There is a recent alternative model, the Coalition for the Common Good founded by Otterbein and Antioch Universities in 2023. Designed to be more than a bilateral arrangement, the Coalition plans to expand to several partners in the coming years. The Coalition model may resemble a consortium in some ways. There is a shared services subsidiary designed for cost-sharing purposes. And, crucially, both founding institutions maintain their separate status with accreditors and the US Department of Education. This means both institutions maintain their separate boards to oversee the management of their separate operations.

Coalition activities are several. Some are simply cooperative (communication, joint non-academic initiatives). But others require true shared governance. These include the shift of academic programs and personnel and, crucially, the implementation of the financial aspects of the agreement. A central element of the Coalition model is for most Otterbein graduate programs (largely in nursing and healthcare) to shift to Antioch control. The goal is to use Antioch’s multiple locations and distance education experience to expand these programs in ways impossible for Otterbein.

The initial governance structure is a bit complex. There is a new Coalition board that has equal representation from both Otterbein and Antioch (four each) and a single independent member. This board appoints the president of the Coalition and otherwise oversees Coalition initiatives.

The straightforward model for something like the Coalition is for the separate boards to operate independently as before except for having ceded certain specified powers to the Coalition board, such as restrictions on excessive debt or certain property transactions. The umbrella Coalition board would appoint a president of the Coalition and the separate boards would appoint separate institutional presidents with the concurrence of the Coalition board.

This approach creates complex challenges as the Coalition model expands, since adding a third, fourth or fifth member on the same model would become unwieldy. This is a challenge the Coalition will have to address in negotiations with additional members.

One can readily see the difficulties with these different approaches. WSCUC, for example, addressed this in an accreditation review of Pacific Oaks College, a member of the CSES system. Noting a grey area, the WSCUC Commission called for steps “to ensure boundaries between provision of services and the management of the college are maintained.” (WASC Commission letter, March 2014) In effect, the Commission is warning about the importance of autonomy of the governing board.

Yet, the desire to collaborate will require changes and sacrifices.  This also is true in the public sector, even though the governance challenges are different. There are numerous state university multi-institution systems. For example, in California, the University of California is a unitary system of ten large and prominent units. However, there is only one Board of Regents for the entire system, along with a system president and various central systems functions.

The composite entities (UCLA, for example) have system-appointed Chancellors with significant independent powers and responsibilities for their unit within the system. They are separately accredited institutions. But they do not have separate fiduciary boards, although there are various advisory groups. The accrediting body (WSCUC) has specific standards for governance of multi-campus institutions. (Recall that the University of California predates WSCUC, as is the case with many multi-campus systems elsewhere.)

A different example is the 2022 decision of the Pennsylvania State system to impose the merger of three smaller campus units into what is now called PennWest. While in some ways similar to the merger of a small private institution, the governance issues were all within the purview of a unitary public system.

Lessons

The lessons to be drawn from this are two. First, systems of private institutions with de facto independent boards and leadership are possible, following the public sector model. Indeed, there are examples of private groups functioning in this general framework

The second is that boards seeking to assure the future of their institution will have to face certain realities. The most likely path – mergers of some sort – will mean surrendering some or all board governance in at least one of the partner institutions. Paths that result in strong partnerships with separate governance are difficult and complex, but not impossible. Creative institutions will seek to explore them and regulatory bodies should attempt to accommodate such new paths. The duty to at least explore these paths is incumbent upon any institution facing existential challenges. It is the only responsible direction in times of change and challenge. Failure to do so represents a shirking of responsibilities and, potentially, closure.

Concluding Thoughts About Accrediting Bodies

A final word about the roles of accrediting bodies in matters of merger and partnership. Accrediting bodies are sympathetic to struggling institutions, as their first responsibility always is to students. As long as they can see a way forward for a school, they try to be helpful. The same is true with state and Federal governments that certainly do not wish to see students lose educational pathways after having incurred student loan debt.

As should be clear, most parties – institutional boards, accreditors, government overseers – see mergers and partnerships as highly preferable to closures. Some observers have suggested accreditors should be able to serve as matchmakers with potential partners of a school in trouble. However, accreditors typically treat each institution in isolation and have not sought the matchmaker role. At the same time, struggling institutions are not always transparent with their accreditors. They worry that if the accreditor knew the true situation of a school in trouble, it might impose some sort of sanction that might make things worse. Complete candor with an accreditor may sometimes be feared as a way of inviting accreditor discipline, a step that will make everything harder, including finding a potential partner that will not be even more nervous about a merger possibility with a struggling school. Candor also can create self-fulfilling prophecies that accelerate crisis.

Yet it is in no one’s interest that a school should fail. Students, employees, communities, alumni and all of higher education lose. Yet, the economics and challenges today – particularly for smaller institutions – create situations where greater accreditor engagement may play crucial roles in institutional survival through enabling or facilitating some form of partnership or merger. Treating every institution as a separate case may be counterproductive in the coming era of institutional consolidation.

Everyone – not just boards of trustees or college president-should care about these challenges. Exploring and supporting different forms of partnership should be on everyone’s minds.

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers.

An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges.
He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.