Over
the past several years, ACE has regularly surveyed college and university
presidents to capture their perspectives on key issues facing higher education.
Most recently, our survey series unveiled insights into the institutional
response to COVID-19. In this survey, 230 presidents* identified their most
pressing concerns: fall operating plans, campus mitigation strategies for
COVID-19, how their institution was supporting individuals affected by the
crisis in Afghanistan, and their approaches to addressing student mental
health. What follows is a summary of our key findings.
Most Pressing Issues for
Presidents
In the September survey, presidents were presented with a list of
19 issues and asked to select up to five that they viewed as most pressing (see
Figure 1). For the sixth time since April 2020, “mental health of students” was
the pressing issue cited most frequently by presidents. Almost three-quarters
of all presidents (73 percent) in the September survey identified student
mental health as a pressing concern, the same percentage that reported it as
pressing in the April 2021 survey.
- Across all sectors, “mental health of students” was the most
frequently selected pressing issue; presidents at private four-year
institutions (76 percent) were slightly more likely than presidents at public
four-year (71 percent) and public two-year (73 percent) institutions to report
this.
- More than half of all presidents (59 percent) identified
“enrollment numbers for the next academic term” as a pressing issue, a slight
increase from 53 percent of presidents who reported this in the April 2021
survey.
- Over half of all presidents (54 percent) selected “mental
health of faculty and staff” as a pressing concern, marking a six percentage
point increase from the April 2021 survey (48 percent). Presidents at public
two-year institutions (65 percent) were more likely to report this than
presidents at public four-year (53 percent) and private four-year (47 percent)
institutions.
- The fourth most frequently selected pressing issue was
“long-term financial viability” (42 percent), marking an increase of 10
percentage points from the April 2021 survey (32 percent). Presidents at
private four-year institutions (47 percent) were slightly more likely than
presidents at public two-year (42 percent) and public four-year (41 percent)
institutions to select this as a pressing issue.
- “Retaining current faculty and/or staff” and “racial equity
issues” tied to round out the top five most pressing concerns among college and
university presidents, with 29 percent of leaders selecting these issues.
-
Notably, “recruiting new faculty and/or staff”
was selected by nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of all presidents as a pressing
issue, an 11 percentage point increase from the April 2021 survey (12 percent).
Fall Operating Plans
Presidents were asked to identify the mode of instruction that
best described what their institution offered at the beginning of the fall 2021
term (see Figure 2).
- More than half (59 percent) of all presidents indicated that their
institutions were offering “predominantly in-person, with some online instruction” at the beginning of fall 2021. Presidents
at public four-year institutions (71 percent) were the most likely to select
this mode of instruction, followed by presidents at public two-year
institutions (62 percent) and presidents at private four-year institutions (54
percent).
- About one in five presidents (21 percent) indicated that their
institution offered “exclusively in-person” instruction at the beginning of the
fall 2021 term. Presidents at private four-year institutions (35 percent) were
more than twice as likely as presidents at public four-year institutions (14
percent) to indicate that their institution offered this mode of instruction.
No presidents at public two-year institutions among survey respondents
indicated that their institution offered this mode of instruction at the
beginning of the fall 2021 term.
- Overall, 17 percent of presidents indicated “predominantly
online, with some in-person instruction” as the type of instruction offered at
their institution at the beginning of the fall 2021 term. Presidents at public
two-year institutions (38 percent) were more than twice as likely to report
their institution offered this type of instruction as presidents at public
four-year (14 percent) and private four-year (8 percent) institutions.
-
“Exclusively online instruction” was reported by
4 percent of presidents as the mode of instruction offered at the beginning of
the fall 2021 term.
Presidents were also asked to indicate the ways that the COVID-19
pandemic affected the modality of instruction offered at the beginning of the
fall 2021 term (see Figure 3). Half of all presidents (50 percent) indicated
that their institutions were offering “primarily in-person instruction, but
have more virtual instruction than before the pandemic,” and 2 percent
indicated that their institution “planned to be in-person, but moved to completely
virtual instruction.” Slightly less than one-third (31 percent) of presidents
indicated that “COVID-19 has not affected instruction modality for the fall
2021 term,” and 18 percent indicated that their institution’s “instruction
modality was affected in another way.”
- Presidents at public two-year institutions (60 percent) were
the most likely to report that they are “offering primarily in-person
instruction, but have more virtual instruction than before the pandemic,”
followed by presidents at public four-year (50 percent) and private four-year
(47 percent) institutions.
- Presidents at private four-year (38 percent) and public
four-year (36 percent) institutions were about three times as likely as
presidents at public two-year institutions (12 percent) to report that
“COVID-19 has not affected instruction modality for the fall 2021 term.”
- Presidents at public two-year institutions (29 percent) were
twice as likely as presidents at public four-year (14 percent) and private
four-year (13 percent) institutions to report their “instruction modality was
affected in another way.”
Presidents who selected “instruction modality
was affected in another way” were asked to provide further explanation of these
effects. Several presidents indicated that their institution was offering
multi-modal instruction, including a mix of in-person, hybrid, and online
courses. Some presidents reported increased enrollment in online courses,
though the number of online courses offered did not change compared with
previous years. A few presidents also indicated more flexibility of instruction
if faculty were ill or had health conditions.
Presidents were also asked whether their
institution had a contingency plan for transitioning to virtual learning in the
event of worsening pandemic conditions (see Figure 4). Overall, 90 percent of
presidents indicated that their institution had a contingency plan, 7 percent
indicated that their institution did not have a contingency plan, 2 percent
reported that they were developing a contingency plan, and 1 percent were
unsure. Responses showed a similar pattern across institutional sector.
Covid-19 Mitigation
Strategies on Campus
As communities across the nation continued to see spikes in
COVID-19 cases, presidents were asked to indicate their current level of
concern around a potential COVID-19 outbreak on their campuses (see Figure 5).
- Across all sectors, over half of all presidents (55 percent)
indicated they had “moderate concern” about a potential COVID-19 outbreak on
their campus, followed by “low concern” (29 percent) and “high concern” (15
percent). Only 1 percent of all presidents indicated that they had “no concern”
around a potential outbreak.
- Presidents at public two-year institutions (19 percent) were
the most likely to report “high concern” around a potential COVID-19 outbreak
on campus, followed by presidents at public four-year (16 percent) and private
four-year (12 percent) institutions.
-
Presidents at public four-year (34 percent) and
private four-year (30 percent) institutions were more likely than presidents at
public two-year institutions (23 percent) to indicate “low concern” around a
COVID-19 outbreak on campus.
Presidents were asked to report whether their state and/or local
governments took actions that restrict the COVID-19 mitigation steps and
strategies their institution can implement (see Figure 6). The majority of all
presidents (71 percent) indicated that their state and/or local government had
not restricted COVID-19 mitigation strategies, 27 percent reported that their
state and/or local government had restricted COVID-19 mitigation strategies,
and 2 percent reported that they were unsure. Presidents at public four-year
institutions (48 percent) were more likely to report that their state and/or
local government had restricted COVID-19 mitigation strategies than presidents
at public two-year (23 percent) and private four-year (15 percent)
institutions.
Presidents were also asked to indicate whether their institution
had established COVID-19-related mandates for students, faculty, and staff
returning to campus this fall (see Figure 7). It is important to note that
individual public and private institutions sometimes have different abilities
to establish or impose COVID-19 mitigation mandates.
- Overall, the majority of presidents reported that their
institution had a mask mandate in place for students (81 percent) and for
faculty and staff (84 percent). Fewer presidents at public four-year
institutions reported that their institution had a mask mandate in place for
students (68 percent) and for faculty and staff (69 percent) than presidents at
public two-year and private four-year institutions.
- Less than half of all presidents reported that their
institution had established a “COVID-19 vaccine mandate” for students (46
percent) and faculty and staff (42 percent). By sector, presidents at private
four-year institutions were the most likely to indicate vaccine mandates for
students (58 percent) and faculty and staff (51 percent).
-
Less than half of all presidents reported that
their institution had “regular COVID-19 testing” in place for students (46
percent) and for faculty and staff (47 percent). Presidents at private
four-year institutions were the most likely to report regular COVID-19 testing
was in place for students (61 percent) and faculty and staff (55 percent).
Presidents at public two-year institutions were the least likely to report
regular COVID-19 testing was in place for students (23 percent) and faculty and
staff (35 percent).
Support for Individuals
Affected by the Crisis in Afghanistan
Many higher education leaders expressed their support for Afghan
students and faculty following the crisis in Afghanistan in summer 2021. We
sought to better understand how institutions were supporting or planning to
support individuals affected by the crisis in Afghanistan.
About one in five (19 percent) presidents
reported that their institution was currently providing or planning to provide
support to individuals affected by the crisis in Afghanistan (see Figure 8). By
sector, one-quarter (25 percent) of presidents at private four-year
institutions reported that their institution was currently providing or was
planning to provide support, as did 17 percent of presidents at public two-year
institutions and 16 percent of presidents at public four-year institutions.
Presidents who reported that their institution was currently
providing or planning to provide support to individuals affected by the crisis
in Afghanistan were presented with a list of five support services and asked to
indicate those that their institution was providing or planning to provide (see
Figure 9).
- The most commonly selected item from the list of support
services for individuals affected by the crisis in Afghanistan was “established
enrollment pathways for Afghan refugees and/or students” (38 percent), followed
by “creating teaching and/or research opportunities for Afghan scholars and
professors” (26 percent).
- Nearly one in five presidents selected “scholarships for
Afghan refugees and/or students” and “providing campus facilities as temporary
accommodations for refugees” (19 percent each).
-
Thirteen percent of presidents stated that their
institution was currently offering or planning to offer “emergency funding to
provide immediate financial support” to those affected by the crisis in
Afghanistan.
ACE, in collaboration with the Institute of
International Education, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,
and the Association of American Universities, created a resource kit to help colleges and universities ensure
that necessary structures and support networks are in place to welcome Afghan
students and scholars.
Student Mental Health
Over the past year and a half, we surveyed presidents to
understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the mental health and
well-being of students, faculty, and staff on their campuses, as well as how
their institutions are supporting mental health and well-being in their campus
community. In this survey, we sought to understand how presidents perceive the
overall mental health of their student body and how their institution is
supporting student mental health.
We asked presidents how the priority level of student mental
health has changed at their institution, compared with years prior to the pandemic
(see Figure 10). Overall, 83 percent of respondents reported that student
mental health was more of a priority, 16 percent reported that it was about the
same priority level, and 1 percent reported that it was less of a priority
compared with years prior to the pandemic.
In 2019, ACE asked presidents a similar question
in a Pulse Point survey around student mental health and well-being. We
found that 81 percent of presidents reported student mental health was more of
a priority than three years prior. The slight increase to 83 percent in this
latest survey is not surprising due to the unique challenges students are
facing in the midst of a pandemic.
Presidents were asked to rate the mental health
of their student body this year compared with previous years (see Figure 11).
The majority (62 percent) of respondents rated the mental health of their
student body as “worse” this year compared with previous years, 26 percent
rated student mental health as “about the same,” 6 percent rated it as
“better,” and 5 percent reported that they were “unsure.” Over three-quarters
(76 percent) of presidents at public four-year institutions rated the mental
health of their student body as “worse” this year, as did 63 percent of
presidents at public two-year institutions and 57 percent of presidents at
private four-year institutions.
Presidents were given a set of six commonly utilized supports for
student mental health and asked to select which supports their institutions
utilized in preparation for the current academic year (see Figure 12). The most
commonly selected supports were “hired more staff to address student mental
health” (50 percent) and “built relationships with providers in the local
community” (50 percent).
- About four in 10 presidents indicated that their institution
“allocated more resources to current campus offices to build out programs to
support mental health” (43 percent) and “contracted with mental health vendors”
(42 percent).
- Roughly one-quarter (26 percent) of presidents indicated that
their institution “purchased training programs for faculty and staff around
student mental health,” 10 percent indicated that they “created and staffed new
campus offices focused on supporting mental health,” and 9 percent indicated
that they established some other support.
- Over half of presidents at public four-year (59 percent) and
private four-year (55 percent) institutions reported that their institution had
“hired more staff to address student mental health,” compared with 37 percent
of presidents at public two-year institutions.
-
Presidents at public two-year institutions (62
percent) were more likely than presidents at public four-year and private
four-year institutions (47 percent each) to indicate that their institution
“built relationships with providers in the local community.”
* Of the 230 presidents, 102 lead private four-year
institutions (44 percent), 59 lead public four-year institutions (26 percent),
52 lead public two-year institutions (23 percent), seven lead for-profit
institutions (3 percent), five lead private graduate-only institutions (2
percent), three lead private two-year institutions (1 percent), and two lead
public less than two-year institutions (0.9 percent).
The survey was launched on September 27 and
closed on October 8.
The brief was prepared by Danielle Melidona, Morgan Taylor, and
Ty C. McNamee. Melidona contributed to the design and distribution of the
instrument, data cleaning and analysis, and development of the written brief.
Taylor contributed to the design and distribution of the instrument, the
development of the written brief, and data cleaning; prepared the figures; and
supervised the project. McNamee contributed to data review and the development
of the written brief.
The authors would like to acknowledge the
following individuals for their support in the production and review of this
publication: Hironao Okahana, Hollie M. Chessman, Liz Howard, Brianna C.J.
Clark, Benjamin G. Cecil, Maria Claudia Soler, and Ashley L. Gray, for their
thoughtful insights and review of the survey instrument and written
publication, and Vanessa Resler, Lindsay Macdonald, and Ally Hammond, for
editorial support and making the data come to life through design.