Student Green Fund Implementation in U.S. Colleges and Universities from 1973-2010 An Exploratory Review of the National Context, Design, Management, and Application of Student Fees to On-Campus Sustainability Projects
Photo by Sally McCay
Mieko A. Ozeki, M.S., ALM Harvard Extension School December 16, 2010
Abstract College campuses across the U.S. and abroad have seen a growth of student campaigns to take institutional action on climate change. The campus sustainability movement, an outgrowth of the environmental movement of the 1970s, started in late 1990s and has accelerated after 2001, addressing issues related to climate change such as energy consumption and waste management. One of the barriers to implementing sustainability initiatives on-campus has been financing these efforts through existing internal resources, such as general and administrative funds or institutional endowments. Student green fees are one of many alternative financial mechanisms to support sustainability initiatives on college campuses. Documentation on student green fees focus primarily on the creation of this financial structure through student campaigns, but there are limited resources that explore the design and management of these programs once they go into effect. This paper reviews the national context and institutional characteristics of 80 c olleges and universities in the U.S. that currently collect at least one student green fee. A total of 87 green fees was identified from student reports, online research, and an online survey conducted in October 2010. A majority of these fees was allocated to a broad range of sustainability initiatives while others explicitly fund services such as recycling programs, green attributes of capital construction projects, or supporting a campus sustainability office. Five sustainability managers were interviewed for an exploratory review of lessons learned on the design and implementation of student green fee programs. Four areas of student green fee design and management are highlighted with advice from these managers, and for further review in a future white paper series for the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability of Higher Education, an international campus sustainability organization.
i
Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jacob Bintliff and Nicole Leung for all their work tracking and documenting student green fund programs in North America. Their efforts have served as a foundation for developing an up t o date list of programs in the U.S. A special thanks to Gioia Thompson, Sustainability Director at the University of Vermont, for her invaluable feedback and understanding; to my husband, Josh Blumberg, for his technical help with my research and enduring my absence while working on this project.
ii
Contents ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ II LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... V DEFINITION OF TERMS......................................................................................................... VI ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... VI I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 5 A. 1990 TO 2000 ................................................................................................................ 6 The Talloires Declaration (1990) ....................................................................................... 7 Yale University Campus Earth Summit (1994) ................................................................... 8 Publications and the development of campus sustainability organizations ..................... 10 B. 2000 TO PRESENT ........................................................................................................ 11 Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2006) ............. 12 American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (2007) ....................... 12 C. STUDENT GREEN FEES ................................................................................................. 15 D. LEGAL CONTEXT ON THE USE OF MANDATORY STUDENT ACTIVITY FEES .................. 18 III.
METHODS ................................................................................................................... 21 A. DATA ON INSTITUTIONS WITH ACTIVE STUDENT GREEN FEES ....................................... 21 Identification of accredited U.S. colleges and universities .............................................. 21 List of active student green fees ........................................................................................ 23 B. DATA ON SPECIFIC STUDENT GREEN FUNDS ................................................................. 27 Framework for reviewing multiple cases.......................................................................... 27 Interview questions and procedures ................................................................................. 29
IV.
RESULTS AND RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 30 A. INSTITUTIONAL DATA OF ACTIVE STUDENT GREEN FEE PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. ........... 31 Population of accredited 2- and 4- year degree granting institutions ............................. 31 Findings from Internet research and 2010 student green fee survey ............................... 32 Institutional characteristics of student green fee programs ............................................. 34 Characteristics of student green fees ................................................................................ 40 B. EXPLORATORY CASES OF STUDENT GREEN FEE MANAGEMENT .................................... 52 Interviewee #1: Wind Energy Fee .................................................................................... 52 Interviewee #2: Clean Energy Technology Fee ................................................................ 57 Interviewee #3: Renewable Energy Fee ........................................................................... 63 Interviewee #4: Campus Sustainability Program fee ....................................................... 69 Interviewee #5: Clean Energy Initiatives Fee .................................................................. 76
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 83 A. NATIONAL CONTEXT OF STUDENT GREEN FEES: GENERAL FINDINGS ......................... 83 B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT......................................... 85 1. Fee Design .............................................................................................................. 85 2. Fund Management .................................................................................................. 86 3. Project Solicitation and Selection ........................................................................... 87 4. Evaluation process .................................................................................................. 88 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 91 Appendix A:Supporting Documents ...................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Data Collection Tools and Research Tools ....................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Research Results ............................................................................................... C-1
List of Figures Figure 1: Multiple-case (holistic, single unit of analysis) design. ................................................ 28 Figure 2: U.S. colleges with active student green fees, sorted by institutional control ................ 34 Figure 3: U.S. colleges with active student green fees, sorted by Carnegie size and setting categories ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4: Regional distribution of U.S. colleges with active student green fees. ......................... 38 Figure 5: New green fee programs approved per year from 1973- November 2010. ................... 41 Figure 6: Distribution of 87 green fund and total annualized fee collected per student. .............. 43 Figure 7: Estimated annual budgets of 87 student green funds. ................................................... 46 Figure 8: Distribution of student green funds based on project criteria and fund theme.............. 47
List of Tables Table 1: Accredited U.S. colleges and universities sorted by Level of Institution and Control of Institution ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 2: Programs identified by Bintliff and excluded in report. ................................................. 32 Table 3: Two-year Associate's colleges with student green fees, size and setting. ...................... 36 Table 4: Four-year colleges and universities with student green fees, size and setting................ 36 Table 5: Distribution of U.S. colleges with student green fees by region. ................................... 39 Table 6: Sampling of projects based on green fund theme. .......................................................... 51
v
Definition of Terms Comprehensive fee
A single fixed amount of money charged by an institution. It covers tuition, required fees, room and board, and may also cover books and supplies.
Full-time Equivalent (FTE) of students
A single value providing a meaningful combination of full-time and part-time students. The value is calculated by using fall student headcounts and 12-month instructional activity.
Institutional control
A classification of whether an institution is operated by publicly elected or appointed officials (public control) or by privately elected or appointed officials and derives its major source of funds from private sources (private control).
Level of institution
A classification of whether an institution’s programs are 4-year or higher (4 year), 2-but-less-than 4-year (2 year), or less than 2-year.
Revolving loan fund
An initial sum of money set aside to finance sustainability projects with a quantifiable monetary savings or return. A portion of the returns are reinvested into the fund until loan is paid off. The money is reused for loans to other campus projects.
Student green fees
Revenue collected from comprehensive student fees, dedicated to funding on-campus, sustainability projects.
Acronyms ACUPCC
American College and University President’s Climate Commitment
AASHE
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
STARS
Sustainability, Tracking and Rating System
vi
I. Introduction On most college and university campuses in the United States, student coalitions are actively participating on climate action campaigns. There is an increasing demand for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in the use of renewable energy on these campuses. The impetus to take action coincides with the growing awareness that climate change will affect humankind. C ollege and university infrastructure, like the rest of society, will be severely impacted by climate change. Severe shifts in climate and weather conditions would have a negative effect on transportation, water supply, as well as damage to buildings. The costs associated with occupant comfort, energy, water, and food supplies are expected to rise due to climate change. This will essentially impact an academic institution’s ability to operate (Rappaport and Hammond). The ever-present threat of global climate change looms as senior administrators, students, faculty, and staff forge ahead to reduce their institutional and personal impacts. Over the past forty years, the campus sustainability movement has grown from a grassroots efforts oriented to pollution reduction to top-down institutional responses to address climate change, local economies, social justice, and environmental justice. T he American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) is a testament to the shift in higher education to take action on climate change with 676 signatories from colleges and universities. These institutions voluntarily commit “to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions from specified campus operations, and to promote the research and educational efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the earth’s climate (Second Nature).” The number of campus sustainability officers has also grown dramatically over the past decade. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
1
is a professional association with 860 m ember institutions from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other countries in the world (Johnson). A ASHE convened its first conference in 2006 in Tempe, AZ with 650 attendees and by 2008, the number of attendees more than tripled to 1,700. The 2010 conference had over 2,100 attendees and over 400 presentations on campus sustainability initiatives, climate action planning, and leadership. Over the past few years, mainstream media has caught onto the campus sustainability movement and a number of publications have issued their own “green” college rankings. Based on college sustainability officers’ responses to questionnaires, Sierra Magazine releases its own “Cool Schools” ranking which includes a top 10 g reen schools list.
The Sustainable
Endowments Institute (SEI) issues an annual College Sustainability Report Card, giving letter grades to over 300 publ ic and private colleges with the largest endowments on t heir sustainability performance. In addition, Princeton Review publishes its own Green Rating as part of its college ranking system and highlights schools in its Honor Roll. These green rankings indicate a growing interest in what colleges and universities do to address economic, social, and environmental justice issues on their campuses. The challenge with these rankings is that the metrics each publication uses vastly differs and the published results can often be interpreted as “green washing.” S ustainability professionals have become weary about the lack of standardization and transparency with these third-party evaluations; and have turned to AASHE to develop metrics to assess their institution’s progress over time. In January 2010, AASHE released the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) after three years of piloting the program with a few volunteer institutions. S TARS is a voluntary, transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their progress toward sustainability. Similar to the U.S. Green Building
2
Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system, STARS categorizes assessment credits in three categories- Education & Research, Operations, and Planning, Administration and Engagement- and with 100 c redits in each category. S chools document their progress and AASHE publishes this information publicly on the STARS website. Institutions, who opt into the certification process, can earn Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum certification, which can be renewed every three years. S TARS provide a framework for all sectors of higher education to understand sustainability and benchmark progress over time. Assessment tools, regulatory pressures to manage greenhouse gas emissions, and the recent financial meltdown have motivated institutions to address the gaps and barriers that affect their ability to meet their sustainability goals. Some colleges and universities have tackled these gaps through alternative financial mechanisms such as student green fees, revolving loan funds, administrative funds, and alumni funds. O ver the past decade, an increasing number of institutions have relied on these funding tools to stimulate action. Student green fees have become a p opular mechanism for piloting and implementing sustainability-related projects on campus. The reason for their popularity is that the steps to creating this funding source are relatively straightforward. Typically, it starts with a group of students proposing the idea based on ot her campus models and surveys of the student body. Petitions to student government put the measure on a ballot; through the referendum process, the student body can elect to have a student green fee. If students pass the measure, then senior administrators, Board of Trustees, or legislative body can make the final approval to impose the fee. Once the green funds are approved and collected, the real work begins. The student green fee enters into a n ew phase; transitioning from campaign to program implementation. Proper
3
management and accountability are important to the success of green funds. Students want to be assured the green fee money is spent on projects that meet the fund’s mission. Administrators and staff want to make sure they are not working on long-term projects with short-term appeal to the student body. These stakeholders are interested in the cost savings and return on investment as well as the educational value of these projects. The main question for this paper is what are the components for running a successful student green fund program after the campaign is over? First, this report addresses the national context of student green fee programs. Institutional characteristics of U.S. colleges and universities that implement these programs will be reviewed; in addition to analyzing general findings on the allocation of these funds. This component will be addressed by conducting a s urvey and Internet research to develop a comprehensive listing of active student green fee programs in the U.S. (excluding U.S. territories). The second component explores the experiences of students, faculty, staff, and administrators involved in managing student green fund programs on t heir respective campuses. Exploratory cases are used to illustrate the historical development and the implementation of these student green fund programs. The intent is to draw out lessons learned by fund administrators of best practices for managing these programs in complex institutional environments.
The final
component will be brief recommendations on the design and management of student green fund programs. Overall, information in this exploratory report will be applied toward a white paper series and conference presentations that the author will be creating in the near future.
4
II. Background Student green fees are one of many funding mechanisms used to pilot and implement a wide range of sustainability projects on college and university campuses. Many of these projects are an institutional response to a burgeoning national green campus movement; a movement which has ebbed and flowed for the past forty years. Campus sustainability programs have developed in different ways at different schools. This is due to shifts in institutional culture respective to changing global priorities and pressures over time. The development of sustainability projects on college campuses in the U.S. is part of the historical context of the green campus movement. The green campus movement was spurred from earlier social and environmental movements occurring in the U.S. and abroad during the twentieth century. In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, Kraft and Vig remark that prior to 1970 t he federal government played a limited role in environmental policymaking. Land conservation was the major exception and a priority during the earlier half of the century. The political current of the country shifted as Americans social values changed after World War II. T he nation had transitioned from an industrial to a post-industrial society; gradually shifting away from a preoccupation with the economy (after emerging from the Depression) and national security to focusing on quality of life issues such as the environment (Kraft and Vig 10). Up until the 1960s, air and water pollution were long considered to be a local or state matter by the federal government and not part of the national agenda. This stance changed by 1970. The first Earth Day was on April 22, 1970. It is recognized as a hallmark event of the modern environmental movement (Simpson 4). T he nationwide “teach-ins� from this event about environmental problems, demonstrated the importance of ecology in the social and national agenda (Kraft and Vig 12). S ubsequent events, such as the energy crisis in the mid-1970s,
5
galvanized some facilities managers and administrators at U.S. colleges and universities to take action. They implemented energy reduction and resource conservation solutions on campus with the intent to reduce operation costs. The term sustainability certainly has a multitude of definitions. Currently, the main priority of campus sustainability programs and staff has been to address the environmental impacts associated with campus operations and infrastructure (Simpson 5). Although sustainability has a broader meaning which involves a social and economic dimension, the campus green movement has primarily focused on e nvironmental sustainability. O ver the past five years, campus sustainability efforts have expanded to address social and economic justice issues such as fair trade and socially responsible investments. In the article “A Reflection on Green Campuses,� Walter Simpson provides a brief history of the events, organizations, and leaders who helped build the national campus sustainability movement (Simpson 3-16). The movement gained traction in the early 1990s with a small group of institutions pioneering campus sustainability programs. B y late 2000s, several professional organizations emerged to support colleges and universities committed to climate neutrality. Their agenda includes integrating sustainability in academics and research, facilities and operations, and institutional planning and investments.
A. 1990 to 2000 Twenty years after the first Earth Day celebration, 200 million in 141 countries mobilized to lift environmental issues back onto the world stage (Earth Day Network). T he campaign had become global; the event had boosted recycling efforts as well as paved the way to the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. During this period, campus sustainability efforts were taking shape in different pockets of the country. Collaborations among campus leaders,
6
who were pioneering sustainability initiatives at their institutions, started to happen as they developed the conceptual frameworks for the movement. The Talloires Declaration (1990) The Talloires Declaration was the first official statement made by university administrators of a commitment to environmental sustainability in higher education. The declaration was composed in 1990; created prior to the 1992 E arth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and after the publication of the Brundtland Commission’s “Our Common Future” in 1987. It was composed at an international conference, hosted by Tufts University at its European Center in Talloires, France. The conference was on “The Role of Universities in Environmental Management and Sustainable Development” (Association of the University Leaders for a Sustainable Future). The declaration had a concise introduction on the urgent need for higher education to take a lead in sustainability. It also provided a ten-point action plan for integrating environmental literacy and sustainability into university teaching and practice. At the end of the conference, twenty-two college presidents and chancellors from the U.S. and other countries signed the declaration. And within a year, 125 p residents had signed the declaration. Tufts University hosted and supported signatories of the Talloires Declaration for a couple years when the Secretariat of University Presidents for a S ustainable Future was inaugurated in 1992. Over the next decade, the Secretariat became the Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) and moved to Washington, D.C. where it still supports Talloires signatories. The Talloires Declaration stimulated institutions to address sustainability in academia and furthered initiatives to operationalize environmental sustainability within the institutions infrastructure. S ome institutions in the U.S. began to pioneer environmental initiatives, 7
addressing the “low hanging� fruit on t heir campuses such as recycling programs and implementing energy efficiency technologies.
As more institutions started to incorporate
environmentally sustainable practices, the added pressure of climate change brought on a new push for institutions to address greenhouse gas emissions. Yale University Campus Earth Summit (1994) The Campus Earth Summit was the brainchild of a group of student environmental activists at Yale University. T he group sought funding to help them initiate environmental changes on their campus. They approached Teresa Heinz, philanthropist and chairman of the Heinz Family Philanthropies, in 1994. She challenged the group to problem solve with other higher education institutions that were involved in affecting environmental change on their campuses. Within a couple of months, the student group had organized the Campus Earth Summit. The Summit brought 450 faculty, staff, and student delegates from 22 countries, 6 continents, and all 50 states to Yale’s campus on February 18-20, 1994 (Heinz Family Foundation 2). During the summit, delegates crafted recommendations for higher education institutions around the world to work toward an environmentally sustainable future. A diverse range of institutions were represented at the Summit: historically Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American colleges and universities, community colleges, as well as public and private colleges and universities. In addition, many environmental leaders such as Amory Lovins, Carol Browner, Denis Hayes, Anthony Cortese, Thomas Lovejoy, David Orr, Paul Hawkens, and William McDonough were present to help delegates map out strategies to implement the recommendations. The resulting document from the Summit was the Blueprint for a Green Campus, which was released in January 1995 by the Heinz Foundation. T he underlying principle of the Blueprint 8
was that students have the power to demand a more environmentally responsible campus and curriculum. The reason is that they are a multi-billion dollar stakeholder and consumer of higher education’s services. Similarly, faculty and staff have the ability to influence society by turning out environmentally literate citizens. Ten actions were recommended in the Blueprint (Heinz Family Foundation 11-37): •
integrating environmental knowledge in all relevant disciplines;
•
improving undergraduate environmental studies course offerings;
•
providing opportunities for students to study campus and local environmental issues
•
conducting a campus environmental audit;
•
instituting environmentally responsible procurement policies;
•
reducing campus waste with recycling and composting programs;
•
maximizing and investing in energy efficiency technologies for heating, cooling, lighting, and water systems in all existing and future campus buildings; and reinvesting the savings to further environmental performance;
•
making environmental sustainability a top priority in campus land use, transportation, and building planning;
•
establishing a student environmental center and;
•
Supporting students who seek environmentally responsible careers.
In each section of recommendations, the Blueprint provides steps and outlines opportunities for campus stakeholders (senior administrators, staff, faculty, and students) to help implement these initiatives. It also provides some of the earliest case studies of institutions that have pioneered these actions. Along with the Talloires Declaration, the Blueprint provides an early conceptual framework for environmental sustainability on college and university campuses.
9
Publications and the development of campus sustainability organizations During the late 1990s, a number of books were published on campus sustainability. These publications covered the conceptual framework of campus sustainability, and presented institutional case studies that demonstrated piloted programs and institutional policies. T he National Wildlife Foundation published Julian Keniry’s Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century (1995). This book covered success stories and pointed out challenges to implementing environmentally responsible initiatives in virtually every facet of campus operations such as procurement, landscaping, and energy management. S arah Hammond Creighton wrote Greening the Ivy Tower: Improving the Environmental Track Record of Universities, Colleges, and Other Institutions (1998), which also covered “greening” strategies and included stories from the author’s experience as a p roject manager at Tufts University’s CLEAN! program. The mission of the program was to reduce Tuft’s environmental impact. At the time, some institutions were creating precedents in the campus sustainability movement especially in green building design and climate mitigation. Oberlin College pioneered a climate neutral green building (1995-2000) with the design and construction of the Adams Joseph Lewis Environmental Center. The building incorporates a Living Machine™, which helps treat wastewater through the purification processes of wetland ecosystems and recycles the water within the building. It also has a Building Dashboard®, which monitors and displays building data such as energy use and production in real time. In 1999, T ufts founded the Climate Initiative. This made it the first institution in higher education to address climate change mitigation; now it has evolved into Tufts’ Office of Sustainability. Ball State University organized its first “Greening the Campus” national conference in 1996. It has been a biennial event that attracts thousands of attendees from the U.S. and abroad.
10
Formal organizations with national or regional green campus agendas also developed during this decade such as the National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology Program, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (supported by Humane Society of the United States), and Second Nature. T hese organizations have been instrumental in connecting peer institutions to share information on be st practices and providing support in the form of grants, resource guides, conferences, and webinars.
B. 2000 to Present In the past decade, debates on global climate change came to the forefront. It was in the early 2000s when President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not participate in the Kyoto Protocol. During the same time, the IPCC published its third assessment report in 2001. This report clearly stated that the threat of global climate change was unavoidable in the next 10 to 20 years and that poorer nations would be seriously impacted (Bardaglio and Putnam 16). The latter part of the decade saw the release of the Stern Review in 2006, and the fourth IPCC report in 2007. T hese documents illustrated a startling picture of human induced climate change already in progress. It is in this decade that the sustainability movement accelerated on college campuses in the U.S. and abroad. The Millennial generation of college students has been the driving force behind sustainability initiatives occurring on campuses. Reminiscent of the political and social movements of the Sixties, student groups began to launch campaigns to make their peers aware of climate change and its impact. In November 2007, t he Energy Action Coalition mobilized 6,000 college students at the University of Maryland, College Park and at Capitol Hill to call for a clean energy future; the campaign aptly called Power Shift (Bardaglio and Putnam 40). Two years later, over 12,000 college students descend upon Washington, D.C. for Power Shift 2009;
11
6,000 participants lobbied at Capitol Hill for the government to shut down its coal fired power plant (Earth Action Coalition). At the same time, college presidents have taken notice of students’ demands for climate action. Subsequently, some senior leaders have taken action by signing a climate commitment or issuing climate neutrality goal and plan for their campuses. It is during this period that the campus sustainability became a formalized movement with its own professional organizations, collaborative commitments, and voluntary performance tracking system. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2006) The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) is an international organization that “provides resources, professional development, and a network of support to enable institutions of higher education to model and advance sustainability in everything they do.” AASHE was first started as the Education for Sustainability Western Network (EFS West) in 2001 with funding from the Compton Foundation and support by Second Nature. This organization provided resources and support for college campuses in the western US and Canada. EFS West held its first North American Conference in Sustainability in Higher Education in Portland, Oregon in 2004. The success of the conference and the demand for EFS West’s resources led the organization to transition from a regional network to a North American higher education association. In January 2006, AASHE was launched as the first professional higher education association for the campus sustainability community. American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (2007) When the United States decided to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, several states and local governments took up t he ambitious commitments to reduce greenhouse gases in the absence of national leadership (Rappaport and Hammond 6). Colleges and universities followed 12
suit toward making reductions in their heat-trapping emissions by receiving and giving their support to regional, state, and local efforts. A group of twelve college presidents, who attended the 2006 AASHE Conference at Arizona State University, agreed to become Founding Members of a Leadership Circle to develop a new commitment for institutions in higher education to address climate change (Second Nature).
Two months after the conference, the Founding
Members sent out nearly 400 letters to peer institutions and invited them to join this initiative. The resulting document was the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which launched on March 31, 2007. During the first year of the ACUPCC, 152 presidents and chancellors became charter signatories in 2007. As of December 2010, t here are 676 signatories from colleges and universities in the U.S., Canada, Hungary, and the Republic of Palau (Second Nature). Ninetyfive presidents agreed to be part of the Leadership Circle to promote this initiative with their peers and be representatives address the press on this commitment. Signatories of the ACUPCC recognize the scientific consensus on climate change as largely human caused, and action needs to be taken by colleges and universities to address climate change. They collectively understand their institutions unique role in society, as learning laboratories that foster innovation and develop future leaders. Similar to the Talloires Declaration, the ACUPCC recognizes that colleges and universities can exercise their ability to lead in their communities and throughout society by reducing greenhouse gas emissions on their campuses; by educating graduates to achieve climate neutrality through the integration of sustainability in their curriculum. A lthough there may be short-term barriers to institutional change, they believe that the long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits trump these challenges.
13
ACUPCC signatories are required to take the following actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve climate neutrality (Second Nature): •
create institutional structures to guide the implementation of a climate action plan (such as an office of sustainability) within two months of signing the document;
•
complete a comprehensive greenhouse gas inventory (including emissions from electricity, heating, cooling, transportation, and air travel) within one year of signing the document, and update the report on an annual basis;
•
create an institutional action plan toward climate neutrality (also called climate action plan) within two years of signing the document.
These requirements are the long-term components of the commitment. In the short-term, institutions are also required to initiate two or more tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Tangible actions include establishing a green building policy for all new campus buildings, developing a transportation demand management system, and adopting an energy efficiency appliance purchasing policy. The third component of the ACUPCC is that signatories are required to make their climate action plans, GHG inventories, and progress reports publicly available by providing this material to AASHE to post and disseminate the information. ACUPCC signatory institutions represent less than 15% of all colleges and universities in the United States. A lthough the ACUPCC has drawn in several hundred institutions to sign and accept these requirements, many other institutions have launched their own institutional climate commitments. Institutions, such as Harvard University and Yale University, decide not to sign the ACUPCC because they want to create and monitor their own climate neutrality goals. The actions taken by ACUPCC signatories and non-ACUPCC institutions are very similar. These institutions track their GHG emissions as well as develop their own climate action plans. The main difference is that ACUPCC signatories are expected to make their information publicly
14
accessible. Non-signatories have the option to report their greenhouse gas inventory and climate goals to the public at their own discretion.
C. Student Green Fees This paper reports on i nstitutional best practices for implementing and managing student green fee programs at colleges and universities. In particular, it focuses on a subset of 2- and 4year degree granting (including graduate degree programs) institutions in the U.S. that have active student green fund programs. Student green fees are defined as revenue amassed from a comprehensive fee and specifically allocated to sustainability projects on campus. In most programs, green funds are managed by students, faculty and staff. There are a few instances where green funds are managed by students with limited oversight by staff or administrator. Governance and decision making structures will be discussed later on in the results section of this report. Typically, college students pay comprehensive fees as part of their enrollment at a school. These comprehensive fees may include: tuition, room and board, and other associated services such as access to health services, meal plan, technology fees, etc. The most common process for increasing the comprehensive fee and incorporating a green fee involves passing a referendum through a student government election (Campus In Power 6). A majority vote means the student body agrees to the increase. Passage of a student ballot is generally advisory before proceeding to the next level of approval. When the measure is passed, senior administrators review the green fee proposal before receiving approval from a decision making authority such as a Board of Trustees or Regents. Green fees are one of many funding mechanisms to finance campus sustainability project. In Campus InPower’s Raise the Funds: Campus Action Toolkit (2008), student green fees are one
15
of seven funding structures suggested for financing campus sustainability projects and programs. The other funding mechanisms documented in this resource guide are: Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) and ESCO-University Partnerships (ESCUPs); institutional endowments; administrative funds; outside grants from non-profits, private companies, or government agencies; alumni funds; and revolving loan funds. Each funding mechanism has varying degrees of student involvement; and in concept, student green fees have a higher degree of student involvement as well as campus engagement (Campus In Power 5). One reason is that students are the main stakeholders involved in campaigning and managing these funds. It is important to note that not all campus sustainability projects require a budget to be implemented. Rather, these funding structures are an alternative means of starting up or piloting a project that may not be financed from an institution’s general operations budget. There is limited information on how student green fund programs are managed. Most public information and campus sustainability books reference student green fees as a f inancial tool to fund a broad range of projects such energy efficiency upgrades, RECs, internships, etc. Both Rappaport and Creighton (Degrees that Matter 192) and Bardaglio and Putnam (Boldly Sustainable 161) reference student green fees only a few times in their books. They suggest it as a means to encouraging student engagement in campus sustainability initiatives. Raise the Funds by Campus InPower is one of the few resource guides available that discusses how students can create a green fund on their campuses. To date, there are only two student reports that survey student green fees in North America. The most recent report was written by Jacob Bintliff from the University of Texas- Austin, who conducted surveys and some interviews in spring 2009 of colleges and universities with student
16
green funds. As of May 2009, Bintliff identified 66 institutions of higher education in the U.S. and Canada where students have either voted to implement or actively collect student green fees. His final synthesis showed that of the 66 institutions (refer to Appendix A): 49 had active green fund programs, 13 were pending approval from senior administrators or legislative body, and 4 were approved by students but blocked by senior administrators. His analysis shows the varying degrees of approval for these programs, whereby passage of the green fee is deemed successful when the student body and senior administrators agree to implement a program on their campus. The intent of Bintliff’s report was to characterize the establishment of student green funds in colleges and universities in North America. He looks at the scope and form of these programs; informing readers with examples of how to best design a student green fee for a college campus. Bintliff structured his report as a series of responses to questions that students might ask about these programs. Bintliff conducted two surveys; attempting to develop a comprehensive picture of existing programs and gathering perspectives from students, faculty and staff on the utility of student green fees. The first survey identifies instances of student green fee programs in North America. The second was an open ended questionnaire that allowed respondents to anonymously express their views and impressions on t his financial mechanism. He develops cases that focus on successful campaigns as well as on four instances where the initiative failed to pass. This report attempts to create a base case for creating a student green fee. Furthermore, Bintliff expressed in a phone interview that he intended to share the lessons learned to a student green fee campaign at his alma mater, University of Texas at Austin.
17
D. Legal Context on the Use of Mandatory Student Activity Fees The application of student activity fees on college campuses has undergone many legal challenges, especially at public colleges and universities in the U.S. The legal precedents, resulting from these cases, have influenced the formation of student green fees over the past forty years. C ases will be summarized in this section to inform readers on the legal context for utilizing student activity fees toward sustainability projects implementation. In Kaplin and Lee’s The Law of Higher Education (2006), they highlighted cases involving the allocation of mandatory student activity fees at public institutions. State and lower federal courts and lower federal courts have decided on numerous cases on mandatory student activities fees in public colleges and universities throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. It was not until the early 2000s that the constitutionality of mandatory activity fees reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Lower court cases presented a variety of challenges to entire state university systems for actions that include (Kaplin and Lee 1058): •
funding student organizations (for example, Smith v. Regents of University of California (California Supreme Court, 1993));
•
the use of mandatory fees by student governments (Smith v. Regents of University of California (California Appellate Court, 1997)); and
•
the allocation of fees to specific student organizations (Rounds v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education (9th Circuit Court, 1999)).
Other cases challenged the statutory rights of public institution’s authority regarding particular aspects of the student fee structure, such as university presidents authorizing the application of a fee to finance a public interest research group (for example, Cortes v. State of Florida, Board of Regents (Florida Court of Appeal, 1st District, 1995). In at least one case, students favored mandatory student fees but objected to the limitations that the state university system placed on the use of those fees (Associated Students of the University of California at Riverside v Regents 18
of the University of California (Northern District Court of California, 1999). These early court rulings suggest mandatory student fees are constitutional, based on t he following principles (Schmitz 606): (1) fees are used to promote a college atmosphere that supports learning, debate, dissent and controversy; and (2) doesn’t support a specific political or personal philosophy. It wasn’t until 2000 that the constitutionality of mandatory student activities fees finally reached the United States Supreme Court in Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. In April 1996, t hree law students from the University of Wisconsin at Madison sued in federal court the constitutionality of the university’s mandatory fees; objecting to the university’s allocation of fees to student organizations that expressed “political and ideological” views (Kaplin and Lee 1059). The student plaintiffs described themselves as conservatives and Christians. They objected to and argued that they should have had the ability to withhold their money from 18 out of 100 s tudent groups that support gay rights, women’s rights, the environment, and other liberal causes (Greenhouse). They claimed that the use of the fees violated their First Amendment right to be free from the governmental compulsion to support speech that conflicted with their personal views and beliefs. The students won their suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (1996) and in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (1998). The courts said the objecting students were in the same position as union members, who under an earlier Supreme Court precedent, to withhold a portion of their dues that is applied toward a union’s political agenda. Lower court rulings held that the First Amendment protected students against compelled speech. The University of Wisconsin’s Board of Regents appealed the case to the Supreme Court in
19
October 1998, arguing that the mandatory fees support multiple viewpoints with a public forum and do not compel students to support any one message. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that ruled mandatory student fees unconstitutional on March 22, 2000. T he Supreme Court held that the First Amendment permits a public university to charge students an activity fee and use it to fund programs that facilitate extracurricular student speech, provided it is “viewpoint neutral” (Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. S outhworth). In other words, a university can charge a mandatory fee so long as it (1) facilitates free and open exchange of ideas by and among students on campus, and (2) provides “viewpoint neutrality” as a safeguard for objecting students (Kaplin and Lee 1059). The principle of “viewpoint neutrality” means that minority views are treated the same as the majority views. The significance of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth ruling is that it expresses how mandatory fees can be applied to student activities on campus at public colleges and universities. Although the ruling focuses on t he allocation of funds toward student organizations, it bears some influence on how student green fees are structured and implemented on campus. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy found student referendums to be a fault with the University of Wisconsin system. T he reason is that referendums are an alternative method for funding and defunding student organizations, a process that could undermine the viewpoint neutrality process. Since student green fees are generally passed through referenda, fund allocation of mandatory fees tow a delicate political balance on college campuses. There has to be a distinction between determining a group’s eligibility to receive funds and using referenda to determine the amount of funds allocated to a service that a group provides. The latter has been determined to be constitutionally legitimate in the lower appeals court (Center for Campus Free
20
Speech). Thus, student green fee campaigns have to focus on the application and the amount allocated to a service.
III.
Methods
The methods applied in this research paper are intended to: (1) develop an updated list of active student green fund programs in U.S. colleges and universities; (2) identify general trends and institutional characteristics of these programs; and (3) explore some of the lessons learned from managing these funds. The primary constraint of this report is that it focuses extensively on current green fee programs
A. Data on institutions with active student green fees Surveys, Internet research of institutional websites and student reports were the primary methods used to collect data on active student green fund programs in the U.S. Identification of accredited U.S. colleges and universities The population of accredited U.S. colleges and universities was identified by culling information from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). NCES collects and analyzes data related to education in the U.S. and other nations. It is the primary federal entity for collecting postsecondary education data and located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institution of Education Sciences. To date, IPEDS lists 6,900 accredited postsecondary institutions and programs. The database includes every college, university, and technical and vocational institution in the U.S. that participates in federal student financial aid programs. Accredited degree granting colleges and universities was identified by customizing a list from IPEDS based on the following variables:
21
•
Level of Institution: Include “At least 2 but less than 4 years” and “4 years or more”
•
Geographic region: Include “all U.S. regions” and exclude “U.S. territories”
•
Highest level of offering: Include “Doctor’s degree” and minimum “Associate’s degree”
•
Institutional category: Include “Degree granting” and exclude “Non-degree granting”
The following data was collected from this custom list of institutions: institution name, state, geographic region, institution size category, level of institution, control of institution, highest level of offering, undergraduate offering, graduate offering, degree granting, highest degree offered, degree of urbanization, Carnegie Classification (2005), land grant institution, calendar system, and address. The data was uploaded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and sorted by order of Level of Institution (“At least 2 but less than 4 years” and “4 years or more”). Separate workbooks were created for 2-year and 4+ years institutions. Each workbook was sorted by control of institution categories (public, private for profit, private not-for-profit). Institutions were selected from the database to identify a population with salient characteristics that would have the likelihood to implement a student green fee. The scope of this report focuses exclusively on two- and four-year degree granting colleges and universities in the United States that offer undergraduate (Associate’s and Bachelor’s) and/or graduate (Master’s and doctoral) instructional programs. These institutions are likely to have an established infrastructure, offering a social and physical environment that could implement sustainability projects on campus. The level of institutional control (public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit) of these schools is another variable that could influence the campaign for and the ability to enact a student green fee. It is also presumed these campuses have a student body that could actively campaign. Colleges and universities located in U.S. territories, non-degree granting, and less 22
than two year academic programs were excluded. The main reason for these exclusions was to (1) fit the data within the geographic scope of the research question, and (2) eliminate institutions that may not have a physical infrastructure to implement projects on campus. List of active student green fees There are very few centralized databases available that document or comprehensively list student green fees in North America. For the purpose of this report, information was collected from online resources and previous research that list institutions with green funds. T he most current list available is from Jacob Bintliff, a University of Texas-Austin student, who wrote a report in 2009 that analyzes the scope and form of these programs. Bintliff’s initial findings were derived from original Internet research, two databases found on the AASHE and University of California at Santa Barbara’s websites, and two reports compiled by Campus InPower and Brendan Castricano, a Portland State University student. He identified 66 instances of student green fund initiatives occurring on c ollege and universities campuses in both the U.S. and Canada. The status of these student green fund programs was confirmed through two surveys he conducted in spring 2009. In his final analysis, Bintliff confirmed the status of 66 pr ograms and categorized it into active, pending, blocked, or unapproved (Appendix A). Bintliff’s report served as a foundational listing and each program on this list was verified by online documentation from institutional websites, email correspondence with program managers, and an online survey conducted in October 2010. The Student Green Fee Survey (Appendix B.1) was used to verify data collected by Bintliff and to find programs that had not been listed. The survey questions were submitted to Harvard University’s Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (referred as CUHS) for expedited review. The survey was designed to gather current 23
information from colleges and universities collecting green fees. Participation was voluntary and volunteers were recruited via the GRNSCH-L listserve (hosted by Brown University for campus sustainability professionals), AASHE Forum, and direct emails to individuals identified as green fee managers. The survey was created on and deployed from SurveyMonkey™. A total of 14 que stions were asked on t he survey. Skip logic was used to screen participants; in particular, identifying institutions that actively collect and implement a student green fee. After volunteers agree to participate in the survey (Question 1), they select the type of degree granting institution (2-year or 4-year) they are reporting for and proceed to name the institution (Questions 2-4). Question 5 asks whether their institution has a student green fee. Skip logic was applied to this question; participants who responded “yes” proceed to answering the remaining survey questions and participants who respond “no” are immediately brought to the end of the survey. Questions 6-14 ask the respondent to provide the following information: the name of green fee, availability of public documentation and website information, mission or purpose of fee, types of projects funded, amount charged per academic term, estimated total amount collected per year, fee structure (i.e. mandatory, opt-in, opt-out), and the name of the fund manager. The last question asks if the respondent was interested in participating in a follow-up interview. The personal identity of the individual, who participated in this survey, remain anonymous and only institutional data was retained. The design of Bintliff’s survey differs from the design of the survey conducted for this report. Bintliff’s stated intention was to collect information and present it “as a set of answers for the series of questions that students might ask themselves when seeking to establish a green fund program on t heir own campus (Student Green Funds: 1997-2009 3).” His questions focus
24
primarily on the formation and design of green funds, and identify obstacles to getting these fees passed by students, staff, and senior administrators. Bintliff asks some open response questions (i.e. “how do student green funds affect the administration?”, “how supportive is/was your institution’s administration of the fee program?”) to gather the opinions of participants who have campaigned or currently implement a g reen fund program. The Student Green Fee survey for this report was designed to gather factual data on the institution and on the green fee collected (i.e. types of projects funded, fee amount, fee structure), whereby information could be verified through public documentation. Survey results were entered in an Excel spreadsheet with the following data fields: •
• • •
Institutional control (public, private not-for-profit, private for profit) Carnegie size and setting classification (see Appendix B.3) City & State Student green fee name(s)
• • • • • •
Year fee passed Fee amount charged per academic term Estimated annual accumulation Opt-out or mandatory fee Website Contact person
In addition to the funds identified in the survey and Bintliff’s report, additional green fees were found via search engines and college websites. Keyword searches of college websites were used to find any sustainability related student fees. The keywords used in this search were: “green fee”, “tuition and fees”, “bursar”, “renewable energy”, “clean energy”, “transportation”, and “sustainability”. The results from both the survey and online research were collected into a list of institutions with active student green fund programs. All institutions on the list collect at least one student green fee. Identifiers, such as institution name, were kept to group colleges and universities into cohorts for analysis. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education™ framework was used to categorize each school by enrollment size and residential setting, and applied to 25
collectively analyze any institutional trends. The Carnegie Classification is used in the study of higher education programs, both to control and represent institutional differences. T he three fundamental factors involved in classifying these institutions are what is taught (undergraduate or graduate instructional programs), who are the students (enrollment and undergraduate profile), and what is the FTE enrollment and residential character (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching). Institutional characteristics were analyzed and graphed based on customized sorting of data in an Excel spreadsheet and conducting a count. Institutions were collectively reviewed for trends related to the institutional control (public, private not-for-profit, and private for profit), Carnegie classification for size and setting, and geographic location. All the student green fees identified for this project were also collectively analyzed for trends in terms of: when the fee was approved, the annualized fee cost, and the theme of the projects or services funded.
26
B. Data on specific student green funds The second component investigates the design and management of a sample group of institutions actively collecting a student green fee. Interviews with green fund coordinators or managers were the primary method for collecting data on the programs. Framework for reviewing multiple cases An exploratory study was conducted based on i nformation provided by interviewees. The framework for the exploratory study was modified due to the nature and timeline of this research project. The stories collected from green fee managers will be summarized in the results section as modified case studies. All cases are reviewed to draw some recommendations for further review in a white paper series. Exploratory case studies are designed to “develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions for further inquiry (Yin 9) .” The purpose for studying these cases is to learn what processes and structures were developed to implement student green fee projects, and gather some perspectives on the design of green fees. The unit of analysis, or the major entity that is being analyzed, are the institutional groups that manage the student green funds. The approach to summarizing this information is a multiple-case holistic design whereby the contextual conditions (i.e. campus culture, political environment, and administrative structures) are expressed in relation to the “case” (i.e. the student green fee and the individuals who manage it). Figure 1 show a graphical representation of this case study design. The dotted lines between case and context communicate that the boundaries are not likely to be sharp, rather influential to one another.
27
CONTEXT
CONTEXT
Case
Case
CONTEXT
Case
CONTEXT
CONTEXT
Case
Case
Figure 1: Multiple-case (holistic, single unit of analysis) design. Source: Excerpt illustration from Yin’s Case Study Research: Design and Methods, p. 46.
Given the time frame and exploratory design of this component, only five cases will be presented from institutions that have managed at least one student green fee for at least five years. It is presumed that five years is sufficient for institutional groups to develop processes to allocate funds for campus projects. The historical and cultural context of the institution will be described as these are conditions that can influence the design and implementation of green fund programs. The analysis will explore patterns among the five cases related to: the development and design of the green fund, the composition and structure of the decision-making body, the solicitation and selection of projects, and the systems for deploying and tracking projects. This exploratory study will not be a co mparative analysis. The reason is a comparative analysis would mask the circumstances that shape these programs. In addition, the selected cases differ from each other in terms of enrollment size, residential character, academic focus, and campus culture. The commonality among these institutions is that they actively collect a fee, dedicated to sustainability initiatives and initiated by students. 28
Interview questions and procedures The primary collection tool is telephone interviews with student green fund managers. At the end of the online Student Green Fee Survey (refer to Appendix B.1, question 14), subjects had the option to provide contact information and participate in a follow-up interview on t heir program. Subjects were also recruited from GRNSCH-L and AASHE listservs (forums for campus sustainability officers) and through direct email communications. T he researcher arranged and conducted interviews in November 2010. Subject participation was voluntary and limited due to the availability of individuals interested in sharing their accounts of managing a student green fund. Interviewees included sustainability officers, students, faculty, and staff who have a role and determined, through correspondence with the individual, to have institutional knowledge of these programs. The phone interview questions were reviewed by Harvard University’s Committee of the Use of Human Subjects (referred to as CUHS) for expedited review and designed to identify programmatic characteristics. There are 27 i nterview questions, covering five aspects of the student green fee: history of the fund, structure of decision making group, project selection, project implementation, and project evaluation.
These are areas identified in the literature
review, particularly in the Raise the Funds Toolkit (Campus In Power 6-9), that are part of the development and planning of these programs. The first aspect, the history of the fund questions, addresses the steps taken to propose and gain approval for the student green fee. It also asks about any precedents, policies, or pilot projects that may have influenced the development of the fund. The second aspect, questions on the decision making group, focus on representation and the role this representative body plays in the selection and management of projects. The third aspect, project selection questions, address
29
how proposals or ideas are solicited, the format of the request for proposal (RFP) and application, and the process for selecting and approving projects. Subjects are also asked about the lessons learned over time from the project selection process, which is assumed to change based on know ledge gained from projects implemented on c ampus. The fourth aspect, implementation process questions, maps the roles that departments, particularly staff and faculty, play in supporting these projects. Finally, interviewees are asked about the structures for tracking and evaluating project progress, budgets, and campus community and academic engagement. The presumption with these set of questions is that multiple stakeholders, particularly students, are involved or concerned with how these funds are allocated on campus. Subjects are notified that the phone interviews are recorded for the purpose of note taking. Phone interviews were conducted via Skype™ and recorded with software called Audio Hijack Pro™ by Rogue Amoeba, LLC. At the time of reporting, the interviewees’ personal identities and the identity of their institutions were removed to retain anonymity. The intent was to protect the individual’s and the institution’s reputation, while retaining salient information on t heir programs. Carnegie size and setting as well as basic classifications were used as the primary identifiers for institutions interviewed. Interview recordings were destroyed after the reporting stage was complete.
IV.
Results and Research
The data collected for this paper have been separated into two sections. Section A captures an overview of institutions that actively collect student green fees based on publ ic online documentation and survey data. Section B presents case studies that result from interviews with sustainability officers and individuals who actively manage a green fee on their campus.
30
A. Institutional data of active student green fee programs in the U.S. This section provides an overview of accredited colleges and universities in the U.S. (except U.S. territories) with active student green fees. The data collected focuses on the characteristics of institutions in the U.S. that directly collect these funds from student tuition and activity fees. Results were primarily derived from public documentation on institutional websites, Bintliff’s 2009 list of student green fees in North America (Appendix A), and responses to a survey conducted in October 2010. The Student Green Fee survey was opened on October 13, 2010 vi a Survey Monkey and closed on November 12, 2010 (Appendix B.1). The total response count to the survey was 86 participants, who voluntarily consented to answer the survey (Question 1) and started to fill the survey out. The rate of completion was 70.9%, with 61 of the 86 pa rticipants answering Questions 2 to 13. Population of accredited 2- and 4- year degree granting institutions The total number of accredited post-secondary institutions and programs in the U.S. is 6,900 (National Center for Education Statistics). When study parameters were applied to this data set, the total number of accredited 2- and 4- year degree granting institutions in the U.S. (excluding U.S. territories) was 4,700. When categorized by the selected level of institution, 1779 were at least 2 but less 4-year institutions and 2921 were 4-years or higher institutions. There are 1222 private for profit, 1716 were private not-for-profit, and 1762 were public based on institutional control.
31
Table 1: Accredited U.S. colleges and universities sorted by Level of Institution and Control of Institution Control of Institution Level of Institution At least 2 but less than 4 years 4 years or higher Column Total
Private for profit 647 575 1222
Private not-forprofit 90 1626 1716
Public
Row Total
1042 720 1762
1779 2921 4700
Findings from Internet research and 2010 student green fee survey In Jacob Bintliff’s Student Green Fund: 1997-2009 report, he identified 49 institutions that approved and actively collected student green fees (Appendix A). Bintliff verified these programs from public documentation available on institutional websites; and two online surveys he conducted in spring 2009. Programs listed in Bintliff’s paper were reconfirmed; and 6 of the 49 institutions were excluded because (1) programs did not receive funding directly from student fees, (2) the institution was not located within the United States, and/or (3) the green fee no longer exists. Table 2: Programs identified by Bintliff and excluded in report. Institutions Concordia University
Location Montréal, Quebec
Fund Name Reason for Exclusion Sustainability Action (2) Not located within the U.S. Fund
Colorado College
Colorado Springs, CO
EcoFund
Dalhousie University Harvard University Portland State University
Halifax, Nova Scotia Cambridge, MA Portland, OR
Wind Energy Fee
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON
(1) Program does not receive funding from student fees (2) Not located within the U.S. (3) Fee discontinued (3) Fee approved by student referendum, rejected by senior administration, and not currently active.
Energy Retrofit Fund (2) Not located within the U.S. Clean Energy Technology Fee
32
Three of the six institutions on Bintliff’s list were U.S. colleges and universities that either discontinued (Harvard University Kennedy School of Government), failed to implement (Portland State University), or have a different funding source other than student fees to support specific campus sustainability projects (Colorado College). Harvard College students voted on a referendum for a $10 fee to fund renewable energy their school in December 2004, but in 2005 the Dean of the College, Benedict H. Gross, turned down the proposal (Blumenthal). Harvard University President Lawrence Summers had approved a program to set aside $100,000 annually toward the purchase and development of renewable energy on c ampus. A t the same time, students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government voted for a $5 per semester increase in student fees to purchase renewable energy. The fee was collected for the 2004-2005 academic year and was discontinued after the Kennedy School of Government administration decided to pay for renewable energy out of the School’s administrative budget. At Portland State University (PSU), the students had voted on a referendum in 2009 to place a $5.00 per student per term green fee to raise $500,000 t oward sustainability initiatives on campus (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education). To date, senior administrators have not approved PSU’s The Green Initiatives Fund (TGIF). Colorado College was misidentified as an institution that collects student green fees. This institution has a budget for sustainability projects, but the funding is not from a dedicated student fee. T he primary funding is from the institution’s operations budget. Thirty-seven institutions were identified as a result of: keyword searches on the Internet, data mining of e-newsletters and listservs, public survey data from the Sustainable Endowment Institute’s The College Sustainability Report Card (released on October 27, 2010); and responses from the Student Green Fee survey conducted for this report. Overall, 80 de gree-granting
33
colleges and universities in the U.S. (excluding institutions in U.S. territories) were identified to have active student green fund programs on their campuses based on public documentation and survey responses (Appendix C.1). Institutional characteristics of student green fee programs The institutional characteristics of the active student green fund programs, based on publicly documented identifiers, demonstrate general findings in institutional control, enrollment size and residential setting, and geography. 70
# of Institutions
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 # of Institutions with student green fee programs
Public
Private, not-forprofit
Private, for profit
64
16
0
(3.58%)
(0.99%)
(0.0%)
Figure 2: U.S. colleges with active student green fees, sorted by institutional control
When grouped by institutional control categories, active student green fund programs can be found in 64 public and 16 private not-for-profit colleges and universities (Figure 1). None of the programs reported were in private for-profit institutions. Proportionally, public colleges and universities with student green fees represent 3.63% ďż˝đ?‘œđ?‘&#x;
institutions identified in Table 1; and 80% ďż˝đ?‘œđ?‘&#x;
64
64
ďż˝ of the accredited public
1762
ďż˝ of the programs listed as active in Appendix
80
34
C.1. Private not-for-profit colleges and universities with student green fees represent 0.93% ďż˝đ?‘œđ?‘&#x;
16
ďż˝ of accredited private not-for-profit institutions; and 20% ďż˝đ?‘œđ?‘&#x; 1716
16
ďż˝ of the active
80
programs that were identified. A majority of the active student green fund programs can be found in public colleges and universities in the U.S. 25
20
# of Institutions
15
10
5
0
# of Institutions with student green fees
S4/R: VS4/HR: VL2: Very Very small Small 4M2: year, 4-year, Medium 2- large 2year year primarily highly residential residential 3
2
2
1
L4/NR: M4/NR: M4/HR: M4/R: S4/HR: Large 4Medium 4Medium 4- Medium 4Small 4year, year, year, year, year, primarily primarily highly primarily highly nonnonresidential residential residential residential residential 11
6
7
6
L4/R: Large 4year, primarily residential
19
23
Figure 3: U.S. colleges with active student green fees, sorted by Carnegie size and setting categories
When applying the Carnegie Classification for full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment and residential character of campus, the 80 i nstitutions with student green fees fit in 10 of 16 categories for size and setting. A description of the Carnegie size and setting categories can be found in Appendix B.3. S ize describes the FTE enrollment of undergraduate students and excludes graduate and professional degree students. This variable is divided into four classes: very small, small, medium, and large. Residential or nonresidential character describes the 35
campus environment, student population served, and the institutional services and programs provided. This characteristic is part of the classification for 4-year colleges, but not for 2-year colleges because few campuses serve a residential population. Figure 2 shows the 80 institutions with student green fees in Carnegie size and setting classes. A majority of the programs (93.75%) are in 4-year Bachelor’s degree granting institutions and most of these institutions also have masters and/or doctoral and professional degree programs (Table 4). Only five programs (6.25%) were in two-year Associate’s degree granting institutions (Table 3). Table 3: Two-year Associate's colleges with student green fees, size and setting. Level of Institution
Size (# FTE Student Enrollment)
2-year Associate’s degree granting institutions
Medium (2,000- 4,999) Very large ( ≥ 10,000)
# of Institutions
3 2 5
Total
Table 4: Four-year colleges and universities with student green fees, size and setting. Level of Institution
Size (# FTE Student Enrollment) Very small (˂ 1,000)
Small (1,000-2,999) 4-year Bachelor’s degree granting institutions Medium (3,000-9,999)
Large ( ≥ 10,000)
Setting (Residential character) Highly residential (at least ½ the students live on-campus) Primarily residential (25%- 49 % students live oncampus) Highly residential (at least ½ the students live on-campus) Primarily non-residential (˂ 25% of the students live on-campus, includes distance education institutions) Primarily residential Highly residential Primarily non-residential Primarily residential Total
36
# of Institutions
Subtotal by Size
2
2
1 12 11
6 7 6 19 23 75
20
42
Large-sized institutions, with FTE enrollments greater than 10,000 undergraduate students, comprise 55.3% (42 schools) of active student green fund programs in 4-year colleges. All of the institutions in this size class are publicly controlled and part of state university systems. Likewise, the green fund programs in 2-year schools are publicly controlled and part of state college system. Medium-sized, FTE enrollment between 3,000-9,999 undergraduate students, represent 26.3% (20 schools; small sized, FTE enrollment between 1,000-2,999 undergraduate students, 15.8% (12 schools); and very small sized, FTE enrollment under 1,000, 2.6% (2 schools). The 17 private not-for-profit schools, identified in the active student green fee list, have very small to medium-sized FTE enrollments of undergraduate students. Most of the programs at public institutions are part of state school systems with large FTE enrollments (at least 10,000 students). T he University of California system has 7 out of 10 campuses implementing green fees; and 5 of these campuses have replicated their campaigns after one another. T hese five schools named their respective programs “The Green Initiatives Fund (TGIF).� In this instance, the University of California has a long standing institutional commitment to campus sustainability; and provides guidance to its 10 campuses with system wide policies related to green buildings, climate change, transportation, operations, waste and recycling, procurement, and food service. Similarly, the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) system has a Sustainable Campus Fee policy (B-065), which serves as a guideline for its six state universities on how to structure their green fee programs. To date, 5 of 6 c ampuses within the TBR system have dedicated campus green fees. The program guidelines include: a limit on the initial fee request to not exceed $10 per student per semester, the campus president or director appoints committee members and oversees use of fund, and provides criteria on how fees can be applied to certain project types.
37
South 30.0% West 42.5%
West Midwest Northeast South
Northeast 10.0% Midwest 17.5%
Figure 4: Regional distribution of U.S. colleges with active student green fees.
Geographically, institutions that implement student green fees are located in 29 out of 50 states (see map and table in Appendix C.2). The states with the highest number of colleges and universities actively collecting green fees are: California (11), Tennessee (7), Oregon (6), Colorado (6), Washington (5), Texas (5), and Illinois (5). Of these institutions, 37 are publicly controlled and part of state university systems and 8 a re private not-for-profit controlled institutions. Figure 4 and Table 5 s how the regional distribution of schools that implement at least one student green fee. Most of the active student green fees are collected in Western and Southern region schools. The West has 34 institutions (42.5% of current cases) collecting green fees in: California (11), Oregon (6), Colorado (6), Washington (5), Arizona (2), Montana (1), Wyoming (1), Nevada (1), Utah (1). Idaho was the only state in the West that did not have a green fee implemented in college or university. The South has 24 institutions (30%) implementing a green fee in: Tennessee (7), Texas (5), North Carolina (3), Georgia (2), Kentucky (2), Maryland (2), South Carolina (1), Virginia (1),
38
and West Virginia (1). Other schools in the South have attempted to get a s tudent green fee approved at their institutions. Table 5: Distribution of U.S. colleges with student green fees by region.
Region
# of Schools
West (Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona) Midwest (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio) Northeast (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island) South (Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)
34 14 8 24
For example, there is currently a statewide alliance of students and faculty campaigning for the creation of a mandatory student green fee at eleven Florida public universities. The campaign for the student green fee started in spring 2007. In Florida, any new university fees must be approved by the state legislature and then passed by the Board of Trustees at each institution. Two Florida Senate committees approved the green fee bill, but it did not pass in the Senate’s Higher Education Appropriations Committee in April 2009 (Anderson). The campaign for the Student Green Energy Fund continues with Senate Bill 778 and House Bill 505; although, these bills have died in both the House Committee on State Universities & Private College Policy and the Senate Committee on Higher Education Appropriations on April 30, 2010 (Florida Senate). The Midwest has 14 (17.5%) and the Northeast has 8 ( 10%) institutions collecting student green fees in: Illinois (4), Wisconsin (3), Kansas (2), Ohio (2), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1); and Pennsylvania (3), Connecticut (2), Vermont (2), and New York (1). Most schools in the Northeast with student green fees, 7 out of 8, are private not-for-profit controlled institutions. In the Midwest, 12 out of 14 are publicly controlled institutions that collect student green fees. 39
Overall, the significance of the regional distribution is that Western and Southern schools have replicated the green fund model. These regions are larger than the Midwest and Northeast regions, which may explain the proportion of institutions creating these programs. Most of the institutions in the Western and Southern regions were publicly controlled institutions with larger FTE enrollments than the other regions. Characteristics of student green fees Based on data collected in Appendix C.1, 80 U.S. colleges and universities implementing 87 student green fees were identified. M ost institutions managed at least one student green fee. According to information found on i nstitutional bursar or registrar websites, four publicly controlled, state universities were identified as actively collecting more than one student green fee: University of California- Santa Cruz, University of Colorado- Boulder, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and University of Kansas. Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College, and University of Colorado at Denver collaboratively collect a s tudent green fee for their Auraria Sustainable Campus Program. In April 2004, the Auraria Campus student body passed a Clean Energy Fee (a cost of $1.00 per student per semester) to explicitly purchase renewable electrical power for the institution. This fund was used for this purpose from 2004 to 2007; and in 2006, half the funds were spent on wind energy offsets to supply 45% of the campus electricity and the remaining funds were allocated to solar powered lighting projects on c ampus (Auraria Higher Education Center).
The Clean Energy Fee was expanded into a comprehensive Sustainable Campus
Program Fee in 2007 after students voted in favor of it. The funds are primarily used for on campus sustainability projects and programs related to renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste and recycling management, water efficiency, and education and outreach. 40
20 18
# of green fee programs
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 # of green fee programs approved
1973 1991 1995 1997 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
8
5
19
8
15
17
Figure 5: New green fee programs approved per year from 1973- November 2010.
Figure 5 shows the number of new and currently active student green fee programs approved per year between 1973 a nd November 2010. The number of approved green fees was spottily implemented from 1973 to 2001; from 2003 to the present, a majority of the identified green fees had been established. Eighty-two green fees were approved over 7 consecutive years, which matches the growth of events occurring in the campus sustainability movement. There was close to a fourfold increase between 2006 a nd 2007 of green fee approvals, peaking at 19 new funds created in 2007. In 2008, the number of fees passed was less than half of the programs passed in the prior year. Approvals picked up in 2009 with 15 green fees and currently, 17 green fees have been passed in 2010. The decline in green fee passage from 2007 to 2008 notably reflects events that occurred in 2008 when the U.S. and most countries entered a global recession.
41
Among the list of active programs, University of Colorado-Boulder has one of the longest running green fees. In 1973, the student body voted to charge themselves a fee to support the operation costs of their Eco-Center (now Environmental Center). T he Center is the largest student run program and hires eight permanent staff to support the work of the student board, volunteers, and employees. Its mission is to track the environmental performance of the institution and provide direct services to the university community, which includes the recycling program, student bus and bicycle programs, and energy conservation and renewable energy programs. These direct services are fully funded through student fees. CU Boulder is a unique case as the student union approves the budget of the Environmental Center, which sets the green fee rates each year. In March 2009, t he student union passed a $934,005 operations budget for the Environmental Center (Kun and Kassabian). Most of the budget ($777,205) comes from the Environmental Center fee and the remainder ($156,800) from the Sustainable CU referendum, a fee approved by the student body in 2005 to implement oncampus sustainability projects. This finding contrasts with Bintliff’s assertion that the University of Kansas at Lawrence was the first institution to implement a student green fee (Student Green Funds: 1997-2009 6).
42
Green Fee Rate Per Student (Annualized) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 # of green fee programs
< $5.00
$5.00$15.00
$15.01$25.00
$25.01$35.00
$35.01$45.00
> $45.01
other method
10
38
20
9
2
7
1
Figure 6: Distribution of 87 green fund and total annualized fee collected per student.
The passage of green fees has some relationship to the annual rate students are willing to allocate to sustainability projects on-campus, and institutional authorities (such as senior administrators, Board of Trustees, or Board of Regents) decision to create these fees. The green fee rates of 87 f unds are annualized in Figure 6. T his chart shows the total amount full-time undergraduate and graduate students pay per year at campuses with different collection schemes (i.e. cost per academic term- quarter, trimester, semester- or per credit). Annualized rates were calculated by multiplying the cost per academic term with the total number of terms in an academic year. For example, a fee that is $5 per semester would be $10 per academic year. In the case of per credit hour collection schemes, it was assumed that a fullcourse load would be 12 hours unless noted differently by the institution. Annually, students at 80 U.S. colleges and universities pay at least one student green fee that ranges between $0.50
43
and $400.00. The most common annual fee rate is between $5.00 and $15.00, whereby 88.5% are less than $35.00. University of Colorado at Boulder had the highest student green fee at $400 per student per year, dedicated to capital construction of four new buildings, the implementation of IT infrastructure for the campus, and financial aid for students who cannot afford the fee. CU Boulderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Law School was subject to losing accreditation by its accrediting agency in the late 1990s due to inadequate facilities after seven years of repair efforts. In 1997, Colorado Law School students voted to pay $1,000 additional tuition dedicated to the construction of a new building and with an income stream of $6 million. The college is a state-financed institution, and around 2001 t he Colorado State Legislature had started to cut funding to operating budgets and capitol construction projects. In 2003, campus administrators and Colorado Law students worked with the CU Boulder student government to create a fee that would replace a $101.3 million bond (called the State Capital Construction Fund), which the state legislature rescinded in the wake of a fiscal crisis Colorado was facing at the time. The fee was approved by the student government. In 2004, s tudents successfully lobbied the Colorado General Assembly to enact a bill that enabled the University of Colorado to become an enterprise so that tuition could be increased to fill the capitol construction budget. The fee was first collected in 2006, progressing annually from $100 to a maximum of $400 per year per student, for a period no l onger than twenty years after the completion of the construction projects and after bonds for these projects have been issued. Twenty percent of the funds collected from this fee go to need-based financial aid for undergraduate and graduate students. Seventy-eight percent of the remaining fee revenue is allocated to the construction and
44
related costs to each of the four campus capital projects. The maximum construction costs supported by the student fee revenue were: •
$21.2 million plus inflation toward the new construction of the Law School’s Wolf Building (total project cost was $46.3 million and completed in August 2006);
•
$16.1 million plus inflation toward the renovation on the Leeds School of Business’s Koelbel Building (total project cost was $38 million and completed in August 2007);
•
$20.7 million plus inflation toward the new construction of the Alliance for Technology, Learning, and Society (ATLAS) Building (total project cost was $31 million and complete in August 2006);
•
and $13.3 m illion plus inflation toward IT infrastructure on campus (University of Colorado Student Union 5).
Buildings constructed with this student fee are mandated to be designed and certified to meet the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standard. These buildings were designed to meet the LEED Gold standard with an incremental cost up t o 1% of the total capital project cost.
In addition, 100% renewable
electricity was used for these buildings up to an incremental cost of 10% above the total cost of electricity for the building. Building electricity would come from renewable technologies on campus or with a Green-E certified off-campus source. CU Boulder did not have any sustainably designed green buildings prior to 2006. After 2006, any new capital construction project or renovation has to be designed according to LEED certification and Labs 21 standards, a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental performance of U.S. laboratories. North Seattle Community College, an accredited 2-year degree granting public institution, is the only green fund rate that could not be identified. The funds were a one-time allocation that students voted on. This allocation was for a 3-year pilot project and was based on fee revenues collected in 2009. It is a lump sum spent over 3-years; a majority of the budget goes toward the salary of a Sustainability Coordinator and the rest to co-curricular education projects (Rusby). 45
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 # of green funds
< $200,000
$200,000$399,999
$400,000$599,999
$600,000$799,999
$800,0000$999,999
> $1,000,000
Unknown
58
20
2
1
2
3
1
Figure 7: Estimated annual budgets of 87 student green funds.
The estimated annual budgets for each of the student green fees were calculated by multiplying the annualized fee rate by the Fall 2010 FTE student enrollments; unless an estimated budget was documented by the institution. Most of the fees were mandatory and have to be paid by students as part of their tuition, but some institutions allow students to opt-in or opt-out of paying these fees. Other conditions that affect payment of these fees are need-based students that have financial aid packages, which may or may not subsidize a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contribution to a green fund. Figure 7 categorizes the estimated annual budgets of 87 individual green fees into monetary ranges. T hese estimated annual budgets are the optimal amounts collected per year, regardless of whether the collection scheme is mandatory or optional and/or financial aid is considered. Fifty-eight green funds were less than $200,000; of which thirty green funds had annual budgets less than $100,000 and twenty-eight had budgets that fit within a range of $100,000 and 46
$200,000. Twenty funds had budgets that ranged between $200,000 and $399,999. Most of the green fee budgets (89.7%) were under $400,000. There were only five funds that were under $1 million and greater than $400,000. Three green fund budgets were over $1 million; CU Boulder has two fees (the Student Bus and Bike Program and the Student Capital Construction fund) that accumulate an estimated $14 million per year. University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign has one fee (Sustainable Campus Environment), which generates an estimated $1.1 million per year. The total revenue generated from 86 of the 87 active student green funds is estimated at $30.5 million per year. 70 60
Funds with explicit project or program criteria
50 40 30 20 10 0
# of green fee programs
Campus Sustainability Projects
Renewable Energy Projects
Support Sustainability Office or Program
Recycling Service
Green Building
Transportation Service
59
18
4
3
2
1
Figure 8: Distribution of student green funds based on project criteria and fund theme.
The revenues derived from these green fees are utilized for a variety of sustainability related projects on college and university campuses across the U.S. Upon closer review of projects lists and fund criteria, these 87 green fees can be categorized into six themes (Figure 8). Some funds explicitly allocate money to a service or fit specific project criteria. In this case, five themes were identified as direct services or funds that have strict criteria: renewable energy projects, support for sustainability offices or programs, recycling services, green building, and 47
transportation services. Most of these green funds have broad criteria and allocate money to a variety of sustainability-related projects including energy and water efficiency, recycling, renewable energy, green jobs training, academic courses, etc. Twenty-eight, or 32.2%, of these reported student green fees had explicit criteria or missions to pay for specific services or projects. E ighteen funds were specifically dedicated to the implementation of renewable energy projects on-campus and included the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), academic courses and energy competitions, and installation of energy producing technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels. Four funds explicitly support the operation costs for implementing a campus sustainability office or program, which includes paying for sustainability officers (director or coordinator) salaries, providing stipends for interns, and/or purchasing materials for programs. The four institutions with this type of green fund budget are: the Pine Lake Environmental Center at Hartwick College, sustainability program at North Seattle Community College, Environmental Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Sustainability Office at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Three green fund budgets directly support recycling services at Montana State University, University of Kansas, and University of Nevada at Las Vegas. The University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV) and the University of Kansas (KU) have the longest running active green fees explicitly dedicated to recycling services. UNLVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rebel Recycling Program was started in 1995 and based on the premise of an Environmental Studies undergraduate senior thesis. The Board of Regents approved a $1 per student per semester fee and the program started in 1995. Initially, recycled materials were collected by an outside contractor, and the company would pick up 2 t ons of recycling per week (University of Nevada Las Vegas). By March 1997, U NLV started to collect and process recycling on their campus. They currently collect an average of 2.6
48
tons per day. The Rebel Recycling Program use to be housed under the Environmental Studies program and now it is under the Custodial Department. KU’s Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) was created in 1997 after receiving funding from the Student Senate through the Environmental Improvement student fee and from university administration. Students had voted on a fee to help create a recycling program and employ students to collect recyclable materials on campus. T he fund primarily pays for parttime student staff positions (called Recycling Technicians), one full-time Program Coordinator, and covers some operating costs. Administrative funds pay for two additional full-time support staff and one part-time student staff position. The general operating costs of the recycling program are covered by the sale of scraps to the commodities market. The Recycling Technicians collect materials such as office paper, newspaper, cardboard, aluminum cans, steel cans, and #1 P ET, #2 H DPE and #3 -#7 plastic bottles and tubs from academic and administrative buildings, dining halls, and residential halls (University of Kansas Facilities Operation). This recyclable material is brought to a central area on campus, then sorted and baled before it is sent to a contractor for sale. The Environmental Improvement fee helps create a workforce on campus, recycling materials while earning revenue for the university to support the operation and management of the program. There were two green building themed fees identified in this report: CU Boulder’s Capital Construction fee and University of California at Santa Cruz’s Student Health Center Green Building fee. UC Santa Cruz’s fee is a dedicated allocation to the purchase and installation of green building materials, implementation of green practices, and costs associated with obtaining a LEED Silver rating. The new Student Health and Wellness Center was completed in March
49
2010. Th e will be actively collected during Winter 2011 qua rter when the green building certification has been determined for the facility. Among these green funds, only one was found to be dedicated to student transportation. CU Boulderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Student Bus and Bike Program fee has been an active green fee since 1991, s tudent initiated and now an administrative fee managed by the Parking & Transportation Services. This fee allows for unlimited use of public transportations on the Regional Transportation District (RTD) service. In addition, it supports a Bike program managed by the Environmental Center and includes on-campus bike maintenance and repair services, bike rentals, and a mobile bike maintenance service. There are many student transportation fees at colleges and universities in the U.S., but CU Boulderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program is the only fee that has been identified as a student initiated fee. Overall, 59 green fees had a broad campus sustainability theme for its projects and of these 55 colleges and universities manage only one fund. The types of projects and programs funded range from light bulb swaps for CFL bulbs to energy competitions to green jobs training. In most cases, these fees were established to stimulate sustainability efforts such as behavior change programs like an Eco-Reps program; or provide money for students to implement a project such as a community garden or composting services in dining halls. Examples of projects are shown in Table 6 within each fund theme category.
50
Table 6: Sampling of projects based on green fund theme.
Green Fund Theme Campus Sustainability Projects
Example of projects funded • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Renewable Energy Projects
• • • • •
Organize a solar decathlon competition. Establish a student farm on campus. Occupancy sensors. Prairie restoration project. Mapping sustainability efforts on-campus. Biomass gasification feasibility study. Screening of the Documentary: “Tapped”. Algae cultivation project. Edible forest garden by childcare center. Biodiesel facility production/workshops. Electric vehicle purchase. Indoor compost buckets. Mycelium buffer mats to filter E.coli, mercury, and other pathogens from pig pasture on campus far. Thermal efficiency audit RECs to offset energy consumption for residential halls. Installation of solar trackers to offset newly renovated green building. Biomass feasibility study. Energy audit and retrofit course. Purchase of Kill-A-Watt meters for dorms.
Support Sustainability Office or Program
•
Recycling Service
•
Hire students as Recycling Technicians, a full-time Program Manager, and 2 full-time support staff to collect and package material for sale to scraps market.
Green Building
•
Construction of a LEED Gold certified law school that uses 100% renewable energy. Provide funding to purchase and install green materials, implement green practices, and obtain LEED Silver certification for a student health center.
•
• Transportation Service
• •
Engage undergraduate students with Sustainability office through internships. Establish sustainability officer position such as a director or coordinator to manage on-campus initiatives: promoting alternative transportation, water and energy conservation, and responsible resource use by students, faculty and staff.
Allows students unlimited use of public transportation near and commuting to campus. Bike maintenance and rental program
51
B. Exploratory cases of student green fee management Data collected in this section are based on interviews conducted with sustainability officers and individuals who manage student green funds. All interviews were confidential; the names of the interviewees are withheld by mutual agreement. Intervieweesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; institutions are identified by two Carnegie classification categories (Basic and Size & Setting) and job titles that generalize their role with the green fund. Each case provides a brief history of the passage of the fund, a description of the decision making group, and the proposal solicitation, selection, implementation, and evaluation processes. Interview questions were designed to draw out facts on how these fund programs operate; in addition to the insights that fund managers or officers share on t hese programs. The depth of coverage in each of these cases relied heavily on the information the participant provided during the interview. Citations are limited in these exploratory cases with the intent to retain the anonymity of the interviewee. Interviewee #1: Wind Energy Fee Basic Carnegie classification: RU/VH- Research university with very high research activity Size & Setting: L4/NR- Large 4-year primarily non-residential Interviewee # 1, a s ustainability director at a large research university, discussed a fee dedicated to the purchase of wind energy offsets for the campus and to date the fee expired in 2008. This individual was involved with the management of this fee when it was rolled into the operations budget of the environmental center. This case will provide the historical and cultural context of the institution when the student green fee was approved; a description of decision making body and green fund management; a description of the project selection and
52
implementation process; a description of the evaluation process; and anecdotal advice based on lessons learned from managing a student green fund. History: The idea for the Wind Energy Fee began in the late 1990s, a few years after the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s student government passed a public transportation fee. At this research university, the student government has an autonomy agreement with the state Board of Regents whereby it can exact student fees, run student owned buildings, operate programs, and raise money without seeking the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approval. When the Wind Energy Fee was passed in spring 2000, t he student government was the only authority needed to enact this fee. According to the student government and state regulations, student fees at this public institution are considered state funds. Students were charged $1.00 per semester to purchase Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from local wind energy production to offset three student owned buildings on campus. The three buildings the student government owns, operates, maintains are the recreation center, infirmary, and student union. The student government employs both students and local union labor to run these facilities; these employees are primarily paid by the student government. This makes each unit obligated to student government first and university administration second. One of the units that report and manage this fee is the environmental center, a professional staff that works on campus sustainability issues and advocates on behalf of the students. The Wind Energy Fee was in effect for four years and before it sunset another referendum was passed to renew the fee at $4.00 per student per semester for four years. In 2008, this fee expired because new policies were established on how fees are approved on c ampus and the institution did not want to renew the fee for another four years. The process for enacting student
53
fees changed due to legislation and court cases on the use of mandatory student fees at public colleges and universities (see p. 18-20). Currently, there are two ways to enact a new student fee at the institution: (1) students pass a referendum on the proposed fee, which is advisory, and then seek approval from the university chancellor who then submits the measure to the Board of Regents for final approval, or (2) student government creates and approves a f ee measure. The expired Wind Energy Fee was eventually rolled into the operating budget of the environmental center. The intent of this new funding scheme was to keep a budget line open to upkeep the purchase of RECs for the student government run facilities. Decision making body and fund management: The environmental center was charged with administering the fund and purchasing RECs on be half of the student body. They were empowered to decide on what wind energy offset vendors to purchase RECs from. The environmental center did not have to await approval from the student government on e ach purchase. Selection and implementation process: The student government, under the advisement of the environment center, decides on the criteria for the RECs purchase on an annual basis. As administers of the Wind Energy Fee, the environmental center transitions roles from â&#x20AC;&#x153;student advocates to institutional bureaucrats (Anonymous Director).â&#x20AC;? When managers purchased RECs they had to follow state and university procurement guidelines and policies. For instance, if the purchase is over $150,001 it would have to go to bid or Request for Proposal to vendors. Purchases made with this fee changed over time, as the environmental center strayed from exclusively purchasing RECs from out of state vendors to purchasing local renewable energy offsets. T he fund paid for, and continues to pay for through the environmental center budget,
54
capital renewable energy projects occurring in communities within the state to offset the institutions’ energy consumption. Evaluation process: The Wind Energy fund budget was monitored by an environmental center project manager. This manager works closely with the accounting department, which provides information on t he account, and reconciles the account on a q uarterly basis. The director of the environmental center brings a quarterly report to the student government environmental and finance boards. The student environmental board reviews the projects the environmental center selects, while the financial board reviews this environmental cost centers spending. Interviewee #1 did not identify any particular metric to evaluate the impact of offsets on the campus. He said that most cost and energy savings, and greenhouse gas reductions were “back of envelope” calculations. This has changed with the university’s implementation of AASHE STARS as an evaluation tool of the institution’s environmental, social, and economic progress on campus. When it came to calculating cost savings associated with RECs, he notes that it is easier to compare the carbon offsets of projects off-campus from projects on-campus. RECs purchased from off-campus vendors or from local in-state producers are cheaper than installing and maintaining on-campus renewable energy projects. Lessons learned: At the beginning of the interview, the director characterized the campus as historically “fee happy” and that student fees “have run their course.” In particular, fees are a temporary solution to getting projects or initiatives underway. One of the first lessons learned was that the fee was “overhyped” to the campus community. The original ballot language and the first 3-4 years of implementation focused on the campus becoming directly powered with wind
55
energy. T his was not a precise message and according to the director, “we took come cred’ (credibility) hits” with the wind fee. During the first few years of implementation, the environmental center would receive questions from students on why they couldn’t see wind turbines installed on campus. This was the students’ expectation because they believed they had paid wind energy production on campus. The organization had to explain to students what a REC was and that the university had a contract with external producers with wind turbines. Students expressed some dissatisfaction with the application of this fee; in particular, they felt “cheated”. T his sentiment has changed over the years as students’ sensitivities and understanding of the institution’s sustainability efforts improved. Interviewee #1 a dvised that when designing student green fee advocates should be mindful and precise with the language of the ballot, especially on what the fund will pay for. “ Don’t over promise,” he said because eventually those claims will come back with resistance to the organization later on. Another lesson learned shared by the director was “make sure the universe is big enough to spend the money well.” Many of the green fees were passed, given the nature of their student government’s autonomy, and could only be spent on t he student run buildings. The budget received for the wind fee and other green fees was more than what they could spend on t hose three facilities. The worse thing for a budget manager is to have surplus money. This means they would have to return the money, which indicates to the student government that the managers asked for too much to begin with. Thus, they needed to find more creative ways to spend the money elsewhere on campus. A good deal of time was spent with student government, facilities department, residential life, and dining services to spend the money in non-student controlled
56
areas. Overall, fund managers and groups should show a wise use of the green fee money to stakeholders. Interviewee #2: Clean Energy Technology Fee Basic Carnegie classification: RU/VH- Research university with very high research activity Size & Setting: L4/R: Large four-year, primarily residential Interviewee #2, a student chairperson at a research institution, discussed the implementation of a restrictive student green fee dedicated to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on campus. This case will provide the historical and cultural context of the institution when the student green fee was approved; a description of decision making body and green fund management; a description of the project selection and implementation process; a description of the evaluation process; and anecdotal advice based on lessons learned from managing a student green fund. History: The campaign for the Clean Energy Technology fee began in Fall 2002. Campaign leaders bypassed getting signatures for their fee proposal from the student body and went straight to the student government for approval. The student government approved the proposal and had a campus election to vote on the clean energy fee referendum. Students voted in favor of the fee and the initiative was brought by the student government to the Vice Chancellor. The student governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role is advisory to campus administration; thus, the Vice Chancellor has the option to accept the decision from the student election before bringing it to the Board of Trustees for final approval. The Board of Trustees approved the Clean Energy Technology fee in Spring 2003, and the fee was actively collected in Fall 2003. There were no other precedents for the creation of a sustainability related fee and this was first to be established at this university.
57
Decision making body and fund management: The Student Sustainability Committee (SSC) manages the Clean Energy Technology fee. The group is comprised of 10 students and 10 faculty or staff members. The students are all nominated by the student senate. Student government has a committee application process for selecting committee appointments. They interview the students and then give the nominee list to the units that oversee the activities for that particular program. The Office of Sustainability appoints people to be on the committee from the student governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nominations. The SSC recruits, with the help of the Office of Sustainability, 5-6 faculty members who have some expertise and represent an area of interest such as sustainability in engineering, architecture, natural areas and ecology, education, and planning and design. Staff representatives are from specific areas of campus such as Facilities and Services and the Office of Sustainability. Students are the only voting members, while faculty and staff are ex-officio without voting privileges, and they are expected to serve a minimum of one-year on the committee. The committee structure includes officer roles, which are fulfilled by student members. The committee chairperson facilitates the decision making process and manages the implementation of distributed funds to projects. The committee secretary writes up and posts the committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meeting minutes. The treasurer works with the Public Engagement office to get updated information on t he Clean Energy Technology fund budget. All committee members have responsibilities including assigned readings, attending meetings, and helping the chairperson run a Clean Energy Technology fund internship program. The internship program will be discussed in the Evaluation process subsection of this case study. The committee meets weekly and the meetings are not open to the public, but minutes are made available on the groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website. The committee recommends projects for final approval
58
and these recommendations first go to the Director of the Office of Sustainability and then the Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement. Both have veto power, but neither party has exercised this power. Most projects receive approval from these parties when they receive the committee’s recommendation. Selection and implementation process: The Student Sustainability Committee solicits and selects projects once per academic year. There are two ways projects are selected for this fund. The first way involves a two-step process, which begins in the fall when the committee distributes a Request for Proposal to the campus community. Applicants are asked to submit a Letter of Inquiry as a means for the committee to prescreen proposals for appropriateness and feasibility. The letters are generally 1-2 pages from any entity that actively attends or works at the institution, including: students, faculty, staff, academic departments, support services, and operations departments. The letters are collected in late fall, and the committee meets three times to review and select projects that would proceed to the next stage. Selected applicants are invited to write a full proposal over the winter break period and submit the proposals with a formatted application to the committee in late January. The committee reviews the full proposals, which they may deliberate on or invite the principal investigator to answer questions about the proposed project. The committee evaluates the proposed projects based on the following funding criteria: •
Energy and sustainability impact
•
Campus impact and presence
•
Project longevity
•
Budget effectiveness, cost sharing and leveraging external funds
•
Likelihood for success 59
•
Visibility to the student body
•
Creativity
•
Education and outreach
Generally, the committee selects projects where the applicant has already conducted a feasibility study and the project is determined to be doable on-campus. It is their expectation that the project has been thoroughly planned. Final decisions on projects are made by early March. The committee submits a list of recommended projects to the Sustainability Director and Vice Chancellor for final approval. O nce the final approvals are received, the accounting office is notified to create project accounts and transfer funds. Funds are made available 1-2 months after the committee makes its recommendation and project leaders are pushed to complete their projects within a calendar year. The second way involves an internal committee process for soliciting projects. M ost committee members work on an initiative that interests them and they bring those project ideas to the group for further review. If the committee determines that they want to pursue a project idea, they proceed to soliciting any campus entity that would implement the project. Once a project leader is identified and a project plan has been developed, the projects are reviewed by the Sustainability Director and Vice Chancellor for approval. Funds are immediately dispersed after project accounts are created. The two-stage project proposal process has been a recent change to the Committee’s process; in addition to a changing the number of times they solicited proposals per academic year. The SSC use to do t he solicitation and project selection process twice a year. T hey changed it to once a year to give the committee time to thoroughly review project proposals. The main reason they implemented the two-step proposal process is so the committee can connect applicants to
60
the appropriate departments on c ampus. T his allows applicants to get proper clearances with these entities and assures the committee that those departments are properly informed. The Facilities Department is one of the key stakeholders that the committee tries to inform early on in the project planning process. Evaluation process: Project leaders, who have been granted an award from the Clean Energy Technology fund, are expected to submit progress reports to the Student Sustainability Committee once a semester. A final report is submitted to the committee when the project is complete. This is the primary means for the committee to have oversight of funded projects. In order to ensure that project leaders are held accountable, committee members are assigned 1-2 actively funded projects and they are responsible for monitoring the progress of those projects. The main metric of evaluation is that the project is completed as proposed. The reasoning is that the committee conducts an upfront evaluation of the project during the selection process. The updated project reports, submitted by the leaders, help the committee have an understanding of what funds have been distributed and what has been spent from the award. If any of the project money is unspent, then it is reclaimed and returned back to the fund. Energy and cost savings achieved from these projects are not reinvested into the fund. The SSC created a revolving loan fund from their student green fee. The committee manages this loan fund and has funded 5 pr ojects from it. The entities involved with the project are responsible for repaying the loan back to the student green fund through the energy savings accrued. In Fall 2010, fifteen unpaid student interns were hired to support other functions of the fund. The interns are responsible for marketing, education and outreach to the university community on funded projects, and researching potential project ideas that may be viable for future funding.
61
It is anticipated that interns will evaluate current and past projects. The purpose for creating the internship program was to address a gap in the committee’s capabilities to promote Clean Energy Technology projects (past and present) and to carry out related education and outreach activities for the university community. Lessons Learned: Interviewee #2 had discussed many lessons learned from implementing a green fee with a student dominated decision making body. O ne aspect emphasized in this interview was the need for a p ermanent staff member to administer and help coordinate education and outreach of the fund. The SSC had appropriated funding to hire a graduate assistant, an hourly paid position, in 2007-2008. The purpose for this position was to support the Committee’s work and help navigate through the complicated accounting systems and policies of the institution. The committee put this position on h old because the student was not reliable. The problem was that the graduate student didn’t have a fixed schedule, so there was no incentive to learn, and there was no one to supervise the position. They had hired undergraduates hourly to do some administrative work and this arrangement didn’t meet the committee’s needs. The SSC came to the decision to hire a staff person to help administer and coordinate the fund. The Clean Energy Technology fund did not have the capacity to pay for a staff person, which made the committee realize that they had to raise the fee. They campaigned to increase the Clean Energy Technology fee, but withheld the idea of a fund administrator from the fee proposal. Hiring a staff person was put on hold till election for fee was raised. Students approved the increase and to date, the SSC was seeking out applicants for this administrative position. Interviewee #2 said that hiring a st aff person is important to the function and continuity of the program. He also states that having a staff person helps free up committee members time to work on other projects for the fund.
62
Interviewee #3: Renewable Energy Fee Basic Carnegie classification: Master's S: Master's Colleges and Universities (smaller programs) Size & Setting: M4/NR: Medium four-year, primarily nonresidential Interviewee #3, a sustainability coordinator at a medium-sized masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s college, discussed the implementation of a student green fee dedicated to renewable energy production and services on campus. This renewable energy fee is current and actively collected at the institution as of Fall 2004. This case will provide the historical and cultural context of the institution when the student green fee was approved; a description of decision making body and green fund management; a description of the project selection and implementation process; a description of the evaluation process; and anecdotal advice based on lessons learned from managing a student green fund. History: In the early 1980s, the College formed an Environmental Model Committee (EMC) with a representative body that covered a cross-section of the institution. T his group had an advisory role on e nvironmental issues on t he campus. The campaign for the renewable energy fee began in spring 2001 with the intent to switch the campus to 22% renewable energy from the standard supply, which a large portion includes nuclear power. S tudents from the Renewable Energy Club, formed in the same year, led this campaign. They forwarded the proposal to the EMC for review before it was put a vote by the student body. The student body voted and agreed to pay an extra $25 pe r year to their tuition toward renewable energy. The Board of Trustees made the final approval of this fee. Three years later, the Renewable Energy Club, Student Government Association (SGA), and EMC worked together to develop the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first Renewable Energy Policy. The measure was first forwarded informally to the EMC from the Renewable Energy Club. The EMC advised on the proposed policy and in partnership with the SGA, they crafted a p olicy that continued the 63
established renewable energy fee and provided guidelines on t he allocation of this fund. The measure was passed by the EMC and the SGA in 2004; final approval was given by the Board of Trustees in the same year. The Renewable Energy Policy took effect in the 2004-2005 academic year and the sunset date for the fee is 10 years, ending at the end of the 2014-2015 academic year. Most students at the college pay this fee, except for need-based students who receive financial aid. Under its current iteration, these funds are housed under the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Physical Plant. Decision making body and fund management: For the past five years, the primary groups involved in selecting projects and allocating funds are the EMC, SGA, and Dean of Faculty. The EMC is an 11 member group, representing a cross-section of campus, with 4 students appointed by the SGA, four appointed faculty members, and standing team of administrators and staff who advise the committee. One of the faculty members acts as committee chair. Student committee members serve for at least 1 year and faculty serve for 3 years. The Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainability coordinator administers the fund; duties include coordinating committee meetings, facilitating project implementation, and monitoring the fund budget. The EMC was formalized as the only formal committee dealing with environmental issues on campus in 2003. The Dean of Faculty has oversight of this group. The EMCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role from 20032009 was advisory, connecting students with senior administration on c ampus sustainability related initiatives. They were the steering committee arm of the Dean of Faculty; charged with developing policies, programs, overseeing community education with the focus on conserving resources on campus. EMC meets once a month during the academic year; meetings are open to the public, encouraging student involvement. Meeting minutes are available internally to the
64
campus community. This group decided to not post this information because they cover so many topics in their meeting as well as discuss confidential information. This role was adjusted when the college president established a Sustainability Steering Committee (SSC) in 2009. The SSC is a 6 member group of senior administrators appointed by the college president. The Dean of Faculty is a chairperson on the SSC and this steering group is charged with facilitating sustainability practices, policies and programs on campus. At the time of reporting, the SSC was in the process of becoming a formal committee structure within the university. The intent is for the SSC to have longer standing or perpetuity that goes beyond the current college president. The EMC falls under the SSC as a working group that generates ideas, fulfill responsibilities on action committees, and helps craft reports with the SSC. The organizational change occurred in light of the College heading toward the development of a sustainability strategic plan for the campus. Currently, the SSC is prioritizing the campus’ sustainability efforts and reviews ideas the EMC agrees upon t hrough quorum and presents to this steering committee. Selection and implementation process:
The Renewable Energy Policy is the guiding
document for the EMC and SGA, authorizing the use of funds for the following purposes: •
Purchasing renewable energy directly from source of generation.
•
Purchasing equipment to establish renewable energy on c ampus or at a renewable energy location.
•
Purchasing renewable energy from a local electric utility company.
•
Provide a grant or loan toward the purchase of a new renewable energy facility.
•
Purchasing independently certified RECs.
At the beginning of the academic year, the EMC and SGA determine which projects or purchases receive funding. In practice, the responsible parties try to spend most of the allotted budget 65
within the fiscal year and some of it rolls over to the next year. Generally, project and purchase proposals are informally presented to the EMC from student groups and departments. The EMC reviews the proposals and issues a recommendation based on a simple majority vote of all eligible members. The recommendation is presented to the SGA. They have the power of final review and approval of the renewable energy fund allocation. The SGA can amend the proposal and if there is no agreement, they return it to EMC to revise the proposal. The SGA has to put the proposal to a 4/5 vote of all eligible voting members before the project can go into effect. Once projects are approved, the sustainability coordinator proceeds with facilitating the implementation process by developing and issuing Request for Quotes (RFQs) for services such as consulting on feasibility studies, or for equipment purchases. After receiving information from vendors, she works with the relevant authorities to select a firm to conduct the project. In order to get contracts going, the coordinator gets approval from the Physical Plant or Vice President of Administration on the purchase. These administrators approve the distribution of funds because it is an allocation mandated by the student government and is the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; money. The Physical Plant distributes the funds and the coordinator gets updates on the fund balance from the Director of Financial Planning. The allocation of these renewable energy funds is explicit and in recent years, there have been suggestions for lighting retrofits and energy meters, which donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fit within the fund criteria. The college has purchased RECs from this fund since 2001 t o offset 100% of their energy consumption with a wind energy producer. In 2009-2010, EMC recommended purchasing RECs again and the SGA turned this recommendation down because wanted to see more renewable energy technologies on campus. SGA agreed to pay for 15% of the fund budget toward RECs and decided to allocate money toward a feasibility study of the renewable energy potential on
66
campus. This study is pending completion based on a n energy efficiency study of the campus that is being conducted by an energy service company (ESCO) at this time. Evaluation process: Each summer the sustainability coordinator works with an intern to develop an annual report on the collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s greenhouse gas inventory and campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sustainability efforts. They present these reports to the EMC, which serves as their main metric on t he institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s progress in environmental sustainability. Other than this reporting, there is no other metric or evaluation process applied toward determining the success of these projects. They simply rely on intangible assessments by reporting whether an installed renewable project works, such as the 10 kW solar arrays on t he roof of a residential hall, or that a feasibility study was completed. Academic connections are drawn from these renewable energy projects, which are highlighted publicly to the surrounding community via media service. The Renewable Energy Club organizes events that not only highlights these projects, but addresses broader sustainable practices on c ampus. They also continue to propose ideas and collaborate with the EMC on sustainability initiatives. Academic departments get involved with these projects by incorporating documentation presented on t hese projects. The environmental center on campus has a certificate program in environmental studies that any student with a major can take part-in for three years. In this program, students got involved in a comprehensive sustainability baseline assessment of the campus for a semester. Currently, there is a renewable energy lecture series taking place on campus. Lessons learned: Interviewee #3 noted that prior to the restructuring of the Environmental Model Committee the implementation of renewable energy projects was piecemeal rather than strategic even with an energy policy in place. Decisions need to be part of short and long term
67
plans such as a s ustainability strategic plan or a cl imate action plan that cover energy conservation and efficiency as well as a utility master plan. All of this planning is part of the big picture for the campus’ climate future, a comprehensive concerted effort and buy-in by the community. In recent years at the college, there was a huge shift in priorities by the student body in terms of what they desired to be part of the institution’s renewable energy portfolio. The student body, as voiced by the SGA, desired tangible renewable energy production on campus rather than purchase RECs to offset the campus’ energy consumption. This emphasis on visible solutions has to be balanced with the college’s strategic goals to reach climate neutrality. RECs will need to be brought back into the fold to diversify the institution’s approach to meet this goal.
68
Interviewee #4: Campus Sustainability Program fee Basic Carnegie classification: RU/VH- Research university with very high research activity Size & Setting: L4/R: Large four-year, primarily residential Interviewee #4, a sustainability manager at a large research university, discussed the development and implementation of a student green fee dedicated to student organizations that coordinate sustainability-related programs and events on-campus. The interviewee was involved in the creation of the Campus Sustainability Program (CSP) fee in 2003 and currently observes the actions of Campus Sustainability Council as a sustainability officer at the university. This case will provide the historical and cultural context of the institution when the student green fee was approved; a description of decision making body and green fund management; a description of the project selection and implementation process; a description of the evaluation process; and anecdotal advice based on lessons learned from managing a student green fund. History: The CSP fee was first proposed by a small group of students in 2002. The intent of fee was to support the operational budgets of registered sustainability/environmental student organizations on campus. At the time, there were not a lot of student green fee models available to this group. They had looked to CU Boulderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s student green fee programs and Yale Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Blueprint for a Green Campus as models for initiating sustainability efforts at their institution. The student campaigners had brought the proposal through the multiple channels to get the measure on the student ballot in 2002. They were able to get the initiative on the student ballot, but it did not receive enough votes from the student body to proceed to the next stage of passage. This institution has a multi-tiered student government system based on the academic structure of this large university. The university has a college-based system whereby there are 10 colleges. Each college has their own student government and above this structure, there is a 69
Student Union Assembly with representatives from each college. Student fee proposals have four routes to get on the student ballot. The first way requires 10% of the student body signing a petition to get the initiative on the ballot. The second way involves 7 out of 10 college student governments approving the initiative to proceed to the ballot. The third way requires a majority vote by the Student Union Assembly. The fourth way involves senior administrators proposing the measure to the student body, which is rarely exercised. The student group, who campaigned for this green fee, faced legal challenges to getting this measure passed between the 2002 and 2003 campaigns. Interviewee #4 indicated that university lawyers expressed concern with any student organization receiving direct funding from a mandatory student fee. The reason is that directly funding a student organization from student fees may be interpreted as exclusive support for a political entity or viewpoint (refer to Legal Context on p. 18-20). The lawyers advised that this fee had to be sponsored and managed by an independent unit rather than a student organization. The 2003 proposal was revised to include a subcommittee, called the Campus Sustainability Council, under the Student Union Assembly to make decisions on f ee allocations. The proposed fee amount was $3.00 per quarter per undergraduate student, which was larger than originally proposed. T his made it possible for other organizations to apply for funding from this source. The caveat of this fee proposal was that sustainability/environmental student organizations received priority funding. The CSP fee campaign was rerun in 2003 a nd they took the first three routes to get the proposed green fee on the student ballot. The group managed to get 7 out of 10 college student governments to approve the measure, and backed it up with signatures from 10% of the student body. They had difficulty getting the Student Union Assembly to approve the proposal, but were able to proceed to the next stage after getting the initiative on the ballot. Once the student group
70
received approvals to get the new fee on the ballot, 25% of the student body was needed to make quorum to vote. This threshold was met and the referendum was passed by simple majority. The university chancellor and state Board of Regents approved the implementation of the fee in spring 2003. T he Campus Sustainability Program fee was first collected during the 2003-2004 academic year. Decision making body and fund management: The Campus Sustainability Council (CSC) is the official subcommittee of the Student Union Assembly, but in practice it operates as a separate entity. They make all decisions on how the Campus Sustainability Program fund is allocated to registered student organizations that apply for grants. The council is mostly comprised of students with 10 r epresentatives from each of the colleges, 1 representative from the Student Union Assembly, 1 r epresentative from the Student Committee on C ommittees, and 2 a lumni representatives of the university and/or had served the CSC in the past. The college representative appointments are voted on by the student governments within each college. There is no official staff or faculty representation on this council. The minimum council representation is 8 seats and the maximum is 14 seats, which ensures a representative body. Members commit to a full academic year on the council and they can serve multiple years. All council members have voting privileges. The main governance documents the CSC follows are the original ballot measure and a constitution, which lays out voting procedures and guidelines for fund allocation. The CSC meets once a week during the academic year and members are allowed up to 3 absences per quarter; excessive absences can lead to dismissal from the council. These meetings are not announced or open to the public. Meeting minutes are made available to the public via
71
the council’s website. This group makes final decisions on how the money is spent, which needs to be within the laws of the state and with the university’s system policies. Each CSC member is assigned to a duty based on t he individual member’s skills. These administrative roles are rotated amongst council members. T he membership roles within the council include a note taker who documents meeting minutes; facilitator who creates the meeting agenda and guides the discussion; fiscal coordinator who drafts the compilation budget proposal for the council during the funding allocation rounds; outreach coordinator who organizes events for prospective council members and organizations seeking funding; a student representative who serves on a staff subcommittee; webmaster who updates the council’s website; and historian who maintains council meeting documents and project records. The purpose of these roles is to give each member the skills to partake in the group’s decision making process. The CSC hires a f ull-time staff program manager, who is responsible for: advising and oversight of council, training council leaders, administrating and supervising the program, and financially managing the fund. She reports to CSC and supports two other student organizations, which receive CSP funding, in conjunction with fiscal management.
The program manager
monitors the legalities of the council’s decisions and advices the council on what to do if there is a conflict of interest. She helps navigate the university’s administrative systems on behalf of the CSC. Selection and implementation process: There are two funding rounds that take place each academic year. Registered student organizations are the only on-campus entities that can apply for funding from the CSP. The CSP requires the following criteria from student organizations applying for funding: •
They must have a fiscal sponsor, a s taff member that acts as the manager of the student organization’s fund. The sponsor helps oversee the transfer and use of funds. 72
•
The student organization must have faculty or staff advisor;
•
The project, program, or event must be sustainability related;
•
Students have to be the primary source for initiating, leading, and implementing all projects.
The CSC is adamant about the last criteria; even though this was not part of the original green fee proposal. Interviewee #4 s ays that the original intent was to foster collaboration between students, faculty, and staff. At some point, the purpose has changed and the CSC will not approve any student organization’s project that is remotely influenced, initiated, or led by faculty or staff members. Capital projects are not funded because if students want to take a lead on the project, there is a legal and safety limitation on their ability to do so. The current fund model only allows for programmatic projects, prioritizing student learning above environmental impact on campus. Student organizations have two opportunities to apply for funding. One grant cycle occurs in the winter for one time late winter/spring funding. The other grant cycle begins in the spring for one-time summer/fall funding and semi-permanent funding. S emi-permanent funding is a guaranteed budget line for a student organization that is earmarked for a specific project. There is a trial period of 2-3 years for student organizations that receive semi-permanent funding before it becomes a permanent budget line in the CSP. Permanent funding is helpful to organizations, which plan annual events, and frees these groups to focus on event planning rather than fund raising. The campus’ annual Earth Summit is one such event that receives permanent funding from the CSP. The council supports this annual event because it revises a multi-use, evolving document called the Blueprint for a Sustainable Campus which encompasses the current visions of students, faculty, staff, and community members on t he future of the university. T he Blueprint is a guiding document for student 73
organizations that receive funding from the CSP. Another student organization that receives permanent funding is the Education for Sustainable Living. This group annually organizes a class that 300 s tudents attend and involves a lecture series with high profile speakers; in addition to 20-25 student-led projects that occur in the class. Student organizations are required to attend mandatory grant training. These trainings are organized by the council’s outreach coordinators and it is an opportunity for student organizations to learn how to apply for funding. These groups submit a written application that asks about the need for the project, the timeline, the budget, and the implementation plan. Applications are evaluated based on the following criteria: •
Implementation and impact of tangible sustainability efforts on campus;
•
Student-staff relationship, particularly addressing who is the fiscal sponsor and determining whether the project is student driven;
•
Relevance and alignment with the Blueprint for a Sustainable Campus;
•
Knowledge sharing with campus community, which requires a presentation to the council and encourages attendance at Earth Summit;
•
Longevity, which relates to the accountability of the group during the duration of grant and requires at least one student to be available while the project is underway;
•
Professionalism of the proposal, in regards to a clear timeline and logistical plan; and
•
Quality of leadership and commitment to the project.
The council reviews the applications and conducts short interviews with the applicants. T he CSC requires a quorum of 50% plus 1 (5-8 members in attendance) to vote on project funding. A two-thirds majority vote is needed to allocate funding to an organization. Once projects are voted on and approved for funding, the program manager facilitates the transfer of funds to the student organization’s fiscal sponsor. Project implementation commences immediately upon receipt of the CSP funds. The turnaround is short and funds are made available on J uly 1st after the 74
council’s spring decisions. T he projects are expected to be completed by the end of the next academic year.
The program manager monitors how the money is spent by the student
organizations and any unspent money is returned back to the CSP. Evaluation process: Project evaluations are done at the end of the academic year, whereby the student organizations submits a report to the council. At times, the student leaders are called in to report to the council member on the progress of their projects. They have to provide a fiscal printout and an updated budget showing how much money is spent. T he program manager monitors the spending of the funded organizations and reports to the council if there is any gross misuse of the money.
At this stage, the council is concerned with the completeness of the
student organization’s project. CSP projects are listed on the council’s website with brief project descriptions and budget allocations. Lessons learned: Interviewee #4 shared lessons learned as a former student who created the fee, former program manager, and observer of the program since its creation in 2003. “One thing I learned is the need for humility. We really went into it thinking we, the students, knew better than anyone else on what needed to happen (Anonymous Sustainability Manager).” In retrospect, Interviewee #4 notes that the students’ mistrust of staff and campus administrators limited the CSC’s ability to make strategic decisions. S he advises that a green fee decision making group should incorporate a diversity of perspectives by including staff and faculty in an advisory role. It is not necessary for staff or faculty to be voting members, but they do ha ve institutional knowledge and expertise that can inform students during the project selection process. Another lesson learned by Interviewee #4 was that student green fee campaigns need to have a clear vision of what the fee is intended for prior to implementing it on campus. She reflected
75
that “[w]e didn’t know what type of fee we wanted to create. We were stifled by the lawyers and forced to create an additional structure that has now taken a life of its own.” The students, who were involved with green fee campaign, had different visions on how this fee would work. After the Campus Sustainability Program fee was approved, the student leaders had to come together to compromise and develop a vision that would work for most parties. I t would have been helpful at the time if the administration had advised them during the campaign on how to shape the fee. This would have helped the council implement the fund more smoothly during the initial years; rather than misuse time with a rocky start and making adjustments to the unintended consequences. Interviewee #5: Clean Energy Initiatives Fee Basic Carnegie classification: Bac/A&S: Baccalaureate Colleges--Arts & Sciences Size & Setting: S4/HR: Small four-year, highly residential Interviewee #5, a fund coordinator at a small liberal arts college, discussed the implementation of a student green fee dedicated to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and resource conservation projects. This Clean Energy Initiative fee has been actively collected as of 2005. At the time of reporting, this student green fund had undergone restructuring of its management procedures. This case will provide the historical and cultural context of the institution when the student green fee was approved; a description of decision making body and green fund management; a d escription of the project selection and implementation process; a description of the evaluation process; and anecdotal advice based on l essons learned from managing a student green fund. History: The Clean Energy Initiative fee was initiated by a group of students in 2004. The students worked with several environmental groups on c ampus with the intent to address the need for renewable energy on c ampus. A ballot initiative to support a state Public Interest 76
Research Group (PIRG) and bus pass fees were the precedents for this student green fee campaign. The primary purpose of the fee was to purchase RECs to offset the college’s electricity consumption and the secondary purpose was to fund on-campus energy efficiency, renewable energy, and resource conservation projects. The main requirement was that a petition was signed by 25% of the enrolled student body before it could appear on the student ballot. The campaign received enough signatures to get the green fee on the student ballot. Once the initiative was on the ballot, 25% voter participation of the entire student body was the minimum needed to validate the election. A majority vote was needed to pass the measure and proceed to final approval by the college’s Board of Trustees. The green fee was passed in Winter 2005 with 28% voter participation and of the students who voted 91% said yes to the Clean Energy Initiatives fee. The college’s Board of Trustees made the final approval of the fee during the same year. The fee was put into effect without a sunset date and can only be revoked when students vote to repeal this measure. Collection of the $1 per credit fee began in Fall 2005. The fee was structured such that 90% of the fund went toward RECs for the college and the remaining 10% for on-campus renewable energy credits. The purchase of RECs helped offset 100% of the college’s electricity consumption, which was mostly feasible due to the Clean Energy Initiatives fee and supplemental support from the college’s administration. In recent years, the fee structure has changed because of increased energy efficiency efforts on campus and the declining cost of RECs which the college purchases from a regional energy utility company. This has shifted the funding allocation to 50% going toward the purchase of RECs and 50% reserved for on-campus renewable energy projects. This case study will focus primarily on the solicitation, selection, and evaluation process of on-campus projects that receive clean energy initiative funds.
77
Decision making body and fund management: The Clean Energy Committee is the main decision making body of this student green fee. The eight person committee consists of five students, the Director of Activities, Director of Facilities, and a faculty member. Student members are interviewed each year by the committee and approved by the student government to serve for a minimum of 1 year. These members can serve up to 2-years on the committee. The faculty representative is selected each year by an agenda committee within the college. All committee members have voting privileges. T he collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sustainability Coordinator attends meetings and serves as an ex-officio advisor to the committee. There are no formal bylaws for this decision making group. Draft bylaws were under review when the committee coordinator was interviewed for this report. In this committee, the students take on roles and responsibilities to help manage the fund which includes a secretary, treasurer, community outreach coordinator, and project director. The committee coordinator is the primary organizer of this decision making group and chief manager of the fund. The coordinator is a voting member on t he committee and is responsible the administration of the committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website, governance structure, outreach to the college community, and facilitates the distribution of funds to selected projects. The committee as a whole meets 2-3 times per quarter to decide on grants or interview new student members. Meetings are open to the college community and are announced via the fundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website as well as posted via email on campus listservs. Meeting minutes are also made available online. The student members meet more often, every two weeks, to discuss the logistical management and outreach of the fund. The committee is the final authority who approves the distribution of funds to most clean energy projects. The exception to this approval process is large-scale installations, which must be
78
approved by the college’s Board of Trustees to proceed with the implementation. One such project is a b iomass gasification system to replace conventional fuels used for electricity production on-campus. Currently, the committee approved funding for a feasibility study for a biomass gasification system on campus. If the installation is feasible, then the Board of Trustees will be the final authority to approve the implementation of the project. Selection and implementation process:
The Clean Energy Committee accepts project
proposals twice per quarter; with the exception of the summer quarter, the committee selects projects six times per academic year. Project proposals are solicited through the campus listserv and direct communications to both staff and faculty members. Early in the fall quarter, the committee coordinator goes into classes and talks about the purpose of the fund to students. The intent of these presentations is to engage students and get them involved in proposing projects. Clean Energy Initiative funding is available to students, faculty, and staff that are interested in implementing projects on campus. There are three categories that projects can fall under: •
Research into the feasibility of implementing renewable energy and conservation technologies on campus.
•
Implementation of a project that would save energy, produces electricity, or conserves resources on campus.
•
Demonstration and education projects that share sustainability strategies with the campus community.
The term “clean energy” has a b road definition under these project categories, which gives flexibility on the types of projects that are awarded grants. Proposers fill out an application and submit a proposal to the committee. The applicant’s proposal has to include: the project budget, timeline, explanation of the projects alignment with the campus’s sustainability goals and climate neutrality goals, education and outreach plan for connecting the campus community to the project, and departmental sponsorship of the project. The latter requirement is important for 79
financial and accountability purposes, especially for students who want to implement projects on campus. Logistically, it allows grant awards to be transferred directly from the Clean Energy Initiative fund to an existing department account. Departmental support assures the committee that the right authorities are notified about and approve the project. The coordinator assists applicants with their project proposals and directs them to the appropriate department to pre-approve proposed projects. Applications are submitted to the Committee Coordinator, who reviews the applications for completeness. The application form asks specific questions that frontload information on the applicantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project plans. Interviewee #5 clarified that the application form was changed in summer 2010 t o incorporate questions frequently asked by the committee during the interview process. The committee screens and selects applications that will proceed to the next stage of review. Project leaders are invited for interviews with the committee. After interviews are conducted, the committee votes by consensus on the set of projects that will be awarded Clean Energy Initiative grants. The main criteria the committee uses to select projects are: whether the project involves renewable energy of resource conservation, aligns with Clean Energy Initiative mission and vision, project longevity and availability of support services, budget effectiveness, likelihood for success, creativity, visibility to the student body, and involves education and outreach activities. Once projects are selected, the Committee Coordinator issues an award letter to the project leaders. The coordinator works directly with the departmental business manager, associated with the project, and the Director of Business Finances to distribute the grant money from the Clean Energy Initiative fund to the department account. Project implementation commences as soon as funds are awarded.
80
Evaluation process: Project leaders are required to provide a quarterly status report to the committee. Receiving status reports from project leaders has proved to be challenging for the committee, especially after funds were distributed. In prior years, committee roles were unclear and they were not set-up to follow-up on projects with leaders. The evaluation process has changed as of summer 2010 such that the committee secretary contacts and reminds project leaders to submit their status reports. In addition to the quarterly status report, the committee requires leaders to document the implementation of their projects as well as a presentation at a campus event or class. Project completion and effectiveness of the project toward educating the community of sustainability strategies on campus are the main evaluative determinants of success for this group. In regards to RECs purchases, the committee has only used the services of a regional energy company. T he main restriction to RECs purchasing is that the renewable energy has to be produced within the geographical region of the college. The committee reviews its options for RECs purchases once a year. O riginally, the green fee mandate was to review the vendor contract for RECs every 5 years. This was based on t he original terms of the first purchasing contract, which has changed since the college currently holds a month to month agreement with the vendor. RECs are paid for directly from the Clean Energy Initiatives fund and the remaining balance is used for projects. The campus community is informed about the clean energy projects and RECs purchases via the campus listserv and fund website. Recently, the committee coordinator researched records of how Clean Energy Initiative funds were spent in years past. A revised list of projects was posted online and shows that the ratio of RECs purchases to Clean Energy projects shifted around 20072008.
81
Lessons learned: Interviewee #5 helped reorganize the structure of the committee and its processes based on lessons learned from prior years of implementation. The committee learned that they had to be more specific and upfront about the kind of information they needed from applicants. In the past, the committee was receiving applications from the community that did not meet the fundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission. They had to write up guidelines that clearly stated what the fund was about and the types of projects the committee allocates awards to. The application form was changed because the committee was asking for the same information during the interviews. The purpose for the revision was to make project information readily available and encourage efficient use of the committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meeting time. The restructuring of these processes also pushed applicants to thoroughly plan and secure approvals with the appropriate departments on campus prior to applying for project funding. Finally, the interviewee suggested the need for a permanent staff member to administer the fund and manage the committee. The committee coordinator position has been filled by student members over the past few years. This poses as a challenge to the continuity of the fundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation, especially with the temporary nature of student enrollment. She thought it was important to have a professional staff person to facilitate financial and administrative services on behalf of the committee; in addition to sharing institutional knowledge and advising the committee.
82
V. Conclusions and Recommendations The results, presented in the prior section, will be synthesized as general findings on the national context of student green fund programs.
T his will be followed up w ith
recommendations that summarize lessons learned by green fund managers, who were interviewed for this report.
A. National Context of Student Green Fees: General Findings The first section of this report identified active student fees with a dedicated campus sustainability projects, programs, or initiatives, and analyzed trends in use of this alternative funding mechanism at colleges and universities in the U.S. Overall, 80 U.S. colleges and universities collect at least one student green fee during the academic year (Appendix C.1) and 87 active fees have been found among these institutions. Thirty-seven institutions were newly identified as active fee programs. T his finding was in addition to the forty-three institutions listed by Bintliff in his 2009 report and reconfirmed as current programs for this report (see Appendix A). The number of student green fund programs has grown since 1973. In particular, this alternative funding model has been rapidly implemented from 2003 to the present. The greatest number of green funds was approved in 2007. T he following year reflected a r eactive period when the U.S. entered a global recession. Yet, student groups continued to campaign for green funds and from 2009 to the present, there has been a steady increase in the number of green fees approved at college campuses. This finding matches the recent history of the campus sustainability movement. While the economic downturn affected many entities including colleges and universities, an increasing number of campuses were adapting sustainability
83
initiatives at their institutions. The ACUPCC stimulated the movement and many institutions saw the importance of this funding model to jump start efforts toward climate neutrality. These 80 i nstitutions represent 1.7% of the 4700 accredited, degree granting colleges and universities in the U.S. (excluding schools in U.S. territories). Although the number of institutions with student green fees is small, an estimated $30.5 million is collected each year from these 80 U.S. colleges and universities. A majority of funds (67.8%) had a broad campus sustainability theme, allocating money toward projects such as community gardens, energy competitions, or green jobs training; while the remaining 32.2% of the student green funds has explicit allocations toward services or programs such as recycling, sustainability office programming or green buildings. In most cases, institutions with multiple student green fees had one from each funding category; whereby they had a fee with a broad application and another fee with explicit criteria for allocating funds to a service, purchase, or program. One of the more pronounced findings was the type of institutions that actively collect student green fees. Publicly controlled colleges and universities had the most representation (80%) in this report. CU Boulderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capital construction fee stands out as a unique application of a student green fee toward large scale projects; this circumstance is an exception and not the norm. One possible reason is that student demand for sustainability initiatives on-campus outpaces the availability of operational funds at public institutions. The significance of this finding is that this funding mechanism has been replicated several times over the past 40 years, and more rapidly in the last 7 years since 2003. It is anticipated that this funding model will be steadily replicated at other institutions over the next few years. Growth will be limited as student green fees sunset and/or are rolled into administrative budgets.
84
In principle, green fees should stimulate sustainable action on c ampus such that it eventually becomes the norm of the institution.
B. Recommendations for Fee Design and Management The second component of this report explored the experiences of sustainability officers, students, faculty, and administrators who coordinate and manage student green fund programs at an accredited U.S. college or university. Five coordinators were interviewed and asked about the history, implementation, and management of their respective student green funds. Each interviewee reflected on lessons learned about the design of the fee structure, project proposal solicitation and selection procedures, and project implementation and evaluation processes. Common themes and recommendations were drawn from these five cases, and presented as aspects for further discussion in a white paper series. The four aspects addressed are fee design, fund management, project solicitation and selection, and project evaluation. 1. Fee Design Most of the fund administrators reflected on the design of the fee, particularly the language used to describe the function of the fee. The approval of a g reen fee does not ensure success; rather it opens the possibility for misunderstanding by the campus community if the fee is passed with a vague purpose and funding criteria. First, student campaigners should be precise with ballot language and what the fee is intended to do. In the case of the wind energy fee, students thought that the institution would install wind turbines on the campus. They did not understand that the funds were allocated to the purchase of wind energy offsets away from campus. Imprecision with language and vision for a fee could have unintended consequences. Students may perceive that their money was misspent, and managers or the fund committee may lose credibility within the campus community. 85
Second, student green fees should be designed with an understanding of what project types can be covered. Fee designers should be cognizant of whether they are allocating funds toward capital projects, pilot projects, or demonstration projects. If students want to have control of how the money is spent, they should make sure the scope fits with what they can do. As Interviewee #2 observed, “there a lot of smaller green fees out there, sub-$100,000, and they focus too much of their time on capital projects, which they really can’t do and which represent a lot of overhead and transactional costs to them. This really isn’t worthwhile for what they are meant to do.” It is important that campaigners consult with staff and faculty to ensure the fee structure fits with the institution’s needs and capacities. Finally, the scope of the student green fee allocation should operate at scale. In essence, making sure that there is a large group of credible projects to work on and that the green fee budget is appropriately sized to meet that load. “Make sure the universe is big enough to spend the money well,” as Interviewee #1 advised. In this case, the scope of the fund was limited to offsetting the energy consumption of three student-owned buildings. The wind energy fund budget was in excess of what was needed and the manager had to creatively think of ways to spend it. In the end, Interviewee #1 worked with the student government, facilities department, and residential life to repurpose the extra funds for energy efficiency projects. 2. Fund Management A management plan is necessary for the continuity and longevity of a student green fund program. In all the cases, there was a p oint person to coordinate committee meetings and administer the logistical aspects of the green fund. First, it is strongly preferred that a permanent staff person is part of the fund management team to help administer the organizational details. In two of the cases, students were the fund coordinators; in one case, the fund started off with a 86
student coordinator before a permanent staff member was hired as fund administrator. The benefit of a fund administrator is that they help navigate through the complex bureaucracy of an institution. T his is especially helpful for fund committees that primarily consist of student members. Coordinators can train new members and provide guidance on i ssues that the committee may have no experience on. Second, the decision making body of the student green fee should be a representative body from diverse areas of the campus. The group should include students, staff, faculty, senior administrators, and/or alumni. Whether they have a vote or are an ex officio on the committee, it is important to have key stakeholders involved in the process. One of the challenges for student fund committees is continuity within the group. If the committee wants to retain an all student membership, then it should consider bringing in experts that are knowledgeable of the institution or on a specific area during the decision making process. Finally, committee members and/or the fund administrator should be aware of who the key stakeholders within the institution. Interviewee #2 learned that “people are generally far from being prepared to do the project they wanted to do” and often they “don’t communicate with entities that could be helpful to them.” It is especially important that committees and fund administrators communicate and develop a rapport with key campus departments. This allows the group to facilitate conversations between project proposers and departments. 3. Project Solicitation and Selection Some fund administrators indicated that most students are unaware that they pay a green fee. This can be a challenge for fund committees who are interested in soliciting project ideas from students. Education and outreach efforts should make students aware of the green fund’s purpose, how to apply for funding, as well as update students on past and present projects. This 87
can be done by presenting in a class, tabling at the student union, or getting on t he meeting agenda of a student group, faculty organization, or department. Another lesson learned by administrators involved the application process. A pplications should be specific and upfront on what kind of information they need from the applicants. For example, applications should include timelines, budgets, and an explanation of how the project fits with institution’s policies or strategic plans.
Applicants should make sure that the
appropriate departments approve their project plans prior to requesting a grant from the fund committee. This is especially true for student led projects as most institutions will not disperse funds directly to students. It is preferred practice that a department becomes the fiscal sponsor to facilitate and monitor the distribution of project funds. Frontloading the project planning, with approvals by key stakeholders, assures the committee that an entity supports the project. It also reduces potential delays, which could occur due to poor communication between project leader and a department. Finally, fund committees should strategically select projects that fit with the institution’s goals. Selected projects should be part of a short and long term comprehensive plan such as a climate action plan, sustainability plan, and/or energy and resource conservation plan. Otherwise, the unintended consequences are a cluttering of projects on c ampus that may have little to no relevance after several years. A piecemeal approach to project implementation appear as “little band aids” to issues rather than strategic and effective. 4. Evaluation process In all cases, the fund administrators expressed that project completion was their metric to evaluate projects. Since most time is spent frontloading the planning of these projects, it is expected that these projects will be finished as planned. This expectation poses challenges as
88
priorities of the institution, logistics, and timing may not work in favor of completing these projects as planned. Thus, evaluation procedures need to be in the place when the fund is implemented and adjusted over time to reflect logistical realities. Project leaders should provide periodic progress reports to the funding committee. Progress reporting helps committee members keep track of the projects in their green fund portfolio. Project information should be accessible to the campus community via a database or website. Accountability relies heavily on t he ability of the fund administrators and committees to keep track of parties involved in project implementation. In one case, the committee required that project leaders submit quarterly reports to them. Instead they received few reports from grant recipients.
Reporting requirements were changed so that the project leaders were held
accountable for their action. Now, leaders have to present their projects in some creative format on campus such as presenting in a class or at an event. ◆◆◆ Overall, fund administrators shared lessons learned about implementing a student green fund on their campuses. In each case, they pointed to different aspects of their funds to improve upon. All interviewees indicated that flexibility was important because processes are bound to change. At the time of reporting, most of the managers had recently changed some process in the green fund such as an application form or progress report requirement.
Flexibility is also necessary to
figure out the culture of acceptable behavior for implementing fees. The main reason is that institutions have to adjust to new structures around sustainability, and in time these actions can become part of the new “business as usual” for the campus. Fund administrators shared a common sentiment that green fees were an excellent financial mechanism to get students engaged in sustainability efforts at their campuses. The passage of
89
student green fees creates opportunities for the campus community to work on s ustainability projects that would not otherwise receive general operating or department funding. It frees people from having to seek funding from other sources, and shows administrators that students care about these issues in the most visible and tangible way. Some fund administrators commented that student green fee programs have had a subtle, but motivational effect at their institution. The financial significance or actions taken with these funds can make senior administrators take a closer look at sustainability issues, later incorporating it in to the institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s priorities. In conclusion, college presidents and senior administrators have gradually taken on sustainability as the operational and academic paradigm of their institutions. Since the signing of the Talloires Declaration in 1990, Y aleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Campus Earth Summit in 1994, and now with 676 college presidents having signed the ACUPCC in 2010, a subtle but definite shift has occurred due to the campus sustainability movement. Student green funds serve an educational purpose that each campus community agrees upon b ased on i ndividual values; rather than the administration making the decision through fiat. The key finding in this report is that student green fees need to be big enough to matter, broad enough to include other funding sources such as alumni donations, deep enough to continue and support a long term strategy or commitment such as climate neutrality. Thus, this funding mechanism is a means for catalyzing sustainable change on college campuses.
90
References Anderson, Zac. "College 'green fees' die in capitol." Herald Tribune 18 May 2009. Anonymous Chairperson. Interview. 22 November 2010. Anonymous Coordinator. Interview. 29 November 2010. Anonymous Director. Interview. 3 November 2010. Anonymous Fund Coordinator. Interview. 30 November 2010. Anonymous Sustainability Manager. Interview. 30 November 2010. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. About AASHE. 2010. <http://www.aashe.org/about>. —. Mandatory Student Fees for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. July 2010. October 2010 <http://www.aashe.org/resources/mandatory_energy_fees.php>. Association of the University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. History of Tailloires Declaration. 2008. May 2009 <http://www.ulsf.org/about_history.html>. Auraria Higher Education Center. Auraria Sustainable Campus Program. n.d. <http://www.sustainableauraria.org/>. Bardaglio, Peter and Andrea Putnam. Boldly Sustainable: Hope and Opportunity for Higher Education in the Age of Climate Change. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2009. Bardaglio, Peter and Andrea Putnam. "Financing Campus Sustainability Projects." Boldly Sustainable: Hope and Opportunity for Higher Education in the Age of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2009. 151-168. Barlow, Ben. Financing Sustainability on Campus. Ed. Andrea Putnam. Washington, DC, 2009. Bintliff, Jacob. Interview. 28 September 2010. Bintliff, Jacob M. “Student Green Funds: 1997-2009.” 2009. Student Sustainability Committee. <http://sustainability.illinois.edu/ssc/downloads/archives/greenfees/GreenFee_report.doc>.
Blumenthal, Matthew S. "Administrators To Support Grassroots Wind Energy Plans." The Harvard Crimson 9 June 2005.
91
Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. No. (98-1189) 529 U.S. 217. U.S. Supreme Court. 22 March 2000. Campus In Power. "Raise the Funds: Campus Action Tool Kit." November 2008. July 2010 <http://campusinpower.org/Campus_INpower/FUNDING_TOOLKIT_files/ACTION _TOOLKIT_RAISE_THE_FUNDS.pdf>. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions in Higher Education. 2010. <http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org>. Castricano, Brendan. "Sustainable Student Fees." Portland State University, 2008. Center for Campus Free Speech. "Viewpoint Neutrality." 2010. Center for Campus Free Speech. 1 December 2010 <http://www.campusspeech.org/student_fees/southworth/viewpoint_neutrality>. Creighton, Sarah Hammond. Greening the Ivory Tower: Improving the Environmental Track Record of Universities, Colleges, and Other Institutions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998. DiFalco, Robyn, et al. "How to Start a Green Fund on Your Campus." 2010. University of California at Berkeley The Green Initiative Fund. <http://asuc.berkeley.edu/cahiers/20103201198722.pdf>. Earth Action Coalition. "Our Work." 2010. Earth Action Coalition. <http://energyactioncoalition.org/content/about/ourwork>. Earth Day Network. "Earth Day: The History of a Movement." n.d. The Earth Day Network. <http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history-movement>. Face the State. "CU Regents Debate Limits to Student Government Spending." 16 January 2009. 2010 December 3 <http://facethestate.com/content/13440>. Florida Senate. Senate 0778: Relating to State Universities [WPSC]. 30 April 2010. <http://flsenate.gov>. Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices Hear Students' Case on the Withholding of Fees." The New York Times 10 November 1999. â&#x20AC;&#x201D;. "No Student Veto for Campus Fees." The New York Times 23 March 2000. Heinz Family Foundation. "Blueprint for a Green Campus: The Campus Earth Summit Initiatives for Higher Education." January 1995. Heinz Family Foundation. <http://www.heinzfamily.org/pdfs/Blueprint-For-Green-Campus.pdf>. 92
Johnson, Nikia. Email to author. 20 September 2010. Kaplin, William A. and Barbara A. Lee. The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making. 4th. Vol. I. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Kraft, Michael E and Norman J. Vig. "Environmental Policy from the 1970s to the TwentyFirst Century." Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft. 6th Edition. Washington: CQ Press, 2006. 1-29. Kun, Adrian and Sara Kassabian. "UCSU Approves Over $10 million in budgets." CU Independent March 14 2009. National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. 2010. <http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx>. Rappaport, Ann and Sarah Creighton Hammond. Degrees That Matter: Climate Change and the University . Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007. Rusby, Christian. Email to author. 11 November 2010. Schmitz, Maxine G. "Mandatory Student Activity Fees in Public Colleges and Universities: The Impact of Smith v. University of California ." Journal of Law & Education (1996): 601-645. Second Nature. President's Climate Commitment: The Commitment. 31 March 2007. 1 May 2009 <http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/commitment.php>. —. Text of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. 31 March 2009. <http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/commitment>. Simpson, Walter. “A Reflection on Green Campuses.” The Green Campus: Meeting the Challenge of Environmental Sustainability. Ed. Walter Simpson. Alexandria: American Physical Plant Association, 2008. Sustainable Endowments Institute. The Campus Sustainability Report Card. 2010. <http://www.greenreportcard.org/>. Tabrizi, Moe. "University of Colorado at Boulder: Campus Sustainability Plan in Support of the Greening of State Government Executive Order." 2008. Tennessee Board of Regents. Guideline B-065: Sustainable Campus Fee (SCF Program). 2010. <http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/policies/default.aspx?id=1706&terms=sustainability>.
93
University of California. About Sustainability at UC. 2010. <http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/about.html>. University of Colorado at Boulder. "ATLAS Program Plan Amendment." 18 May 2004. University of Colorado at Boulder Environmental Center. History and Timeline. n.d. <http://ecenter.colorado.edu/resources/about-us/history-a-timeline>. University of Colorado at Boulder. Wolf Law Building History. n.d. 12 November 2010 <http://www.colorado.edu/law/about/wolf/history.htm>. University of Colorado Student Union. "Appendix #1: Capital Construction Fee Bill." 15 April 2004. Community Benefits. <http://www.communitybenefits.org/downloads/CU%2520Boulder%2520Best%2520 Value%2520Policy.pdf>. University of Kansas Facilities Operation. Environmental Stewardship Program. 2010. <http://recycle.ku.edu/about_us.shtml>. University of Nevada Las Vegas. Rebel Recycling Program. 2009. <http://facilities.unlv.edu/recycling/history.html>. Yin, Robert. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009.
94
Appendix A Supporting Documents Active Programs (49)
Includes all programs that have been both approved by student body or student legislative assemblies and implemented into action
Institution Appalachian State University Austin Peay State Bemidji State University Connecticut College Central Oregon Comm. College Coastal Carolina University Concordia Colorado College Dalhousie University East Tennessee State University Evergreen State College Green Mountain College Harvard University Humboldt State University Messiah College Mercyhurst College Metro State University, Denver Montana State University Northeastern Illinois University Northland College Oregon State University Pacific Lutheran University Portland State University St. Mary's College of Maryland Southern Oregon University Tennessee Tech. University Texas State University, San Marcos U California Berkeley
Public/ Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public
Location Boone, NC Clarksville, TN Bemidji, MN New London, CT Bend, OR Conway, SC Montréal, Québec C Springs, CO Halifax, Nova Scotia Johnson City, TN Olympia, WA Poultney, VT Cambridge, MA Arcata, CA Grantham, PA Erie, PA Denver, CO Bozeman, MT Chicago, IL Ashland, WI Corvallis, OR Tacoma, WA Portland, OR St. Mary's City, MD Ashland, OR Cookeville, TN San Marcos, TX Berkeley, CA
A-1
Fee/annum* $6 – 10 ¹ $12 - 20 $6 - 10 $21 - 25 $4.64 $20 $6 ? C$D 2 - 4 $6- 10 $57.67 $30 $10 $12 - 20 $2 $15 $2 $7 $6 - 10 $40 $12 - 20 $20 $20 - 25 $25 $45 $16 $2 $10
Year Approved 2005 2007 2008 2003 2006 2007 2007 2006 2008 2008 2005 2005 2004 2004, 2007 2004 2007 2004 2008 2007 2000 2004 2007 2003 2007 2007 2005 2004 2007
Program Name Renewable Energy Initiative (REI) Sustainable Fee Green Fee Renewable Energy Fund
Sustainability Action Fund EcoFund direct student levy Campus Sustainability Fee Student Campus Greening Fund Environmental Action Committee (EAC) Humboldt Energy Independence Fund wind energy purchase
Sustainability Fee Green Fee Committee Northland College Renewable Energy Fund
The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF)
Environmental Service Fee The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF)
U California Santa Barbara
Public
Santa Barbara, CA
$4 - 10
2006
U California San Diegoﻱ U California, Santa Cruz U California, Los Angeles U Colorado Denver/Auraria Campus U Colorado, Boulder U Colorado, Colorado Springs U Denver U Guelph
Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public
San Diego, CA Santa Cruz, CA Los Angeles, CA Denver, CO Boulder, CO C Springs, CO Denver, CO Guelph, Ontario
$6 - 10 $6 $6 - 10 $6 - 10 $8 $10 $12 - 20 C$D 12 - 20
2008 2006 2008 2007 2000 2008 2005 2007
U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Public
Champaign, IL
$12 - 20
U Kansas, Lawrence U Memphis U North Carolina, Chapel Hill U North Carolina, Charlotte U Oregon, Eugene University of the South, Sewanee U Tennessee, Chattanooga U Tennessee, Knoxville U Wisconsin, Green Bay Western State College of Colorado
Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public
Lawrence, KS Memphis, TN Chapel Hill, NC Charlotte, NC Eugene, OR Sewanee, TN Chattanooga, TN Knoxville, TN Green Bay, WI Gunnison, CO
$3 $40 $8 $2 - 4 floating ³ $41 – 45 $12 – 20 $16 $3.38 ?
Western Washington University
Public
Bellingham, WA
$42
2003, 2007 1997,2002,-04,-07 2007 2003 2007 2004 2004 2007 2005 2005 ? 2004
The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) The Green Initiative Fund, Sustainability Resource Center ² The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) Sustainable Campus Program Environmental Improvement Initiative AUSA Student Fees Energy Retrofit Fund Clean Energy Technology Fee, Sustainable Campus Environment Fee various Sustainable Campus Fee Charlotte Green Initiative Student Sustainability Fund Renewable Energy Resolution Green Fee
Student Sustainability Fee Renewable Energy Fee (offsets)
$ = US Dollars; C$D = Canadian Dollars * All fee amounts are annualized. Annualized rates for fees charged by the credit hour were calculated assuming a full-time course load of 12 hours. ¹ Fee amounts are presented as ranges reflect the responses available to the institutions in online Survey A. Fee amounts presented as single numbers were either confirmed independently of the survey or mentioned in open-ended portions of Survey A. ² UC San Diego was the only program found in this report to fund a student-run environmental center on a semi-permanent basis from fee revenues ³ UO Eugene’s Student Sustainability Fund is set at a fixed $35,000 annual total. The cost of this total is divided among all registered students each year and paid as a portion of their tuition and fees. This is the only program to use this type of payment scheme found in this report.
A-2
Pending Programs (13) Includes programs that have been approved by students but are still awaiting administrative or legislative approval or are subject to logistical considerations before being implemented
Institution Centre College Emory University Marshall University Northeastern University, Boston Point Loma of Nazarene University U Florida, Gainesville University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Maryland, College Park U Missouri @ Columbia University of Utah University of Wisconsin, La Crosse William & Mary
Public/Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public
Location Danville, KY Atlanta, GA Huntington, WV Boston, MA San Diego, CA Gainesville, FL Athens, GA Lexington, KY College Park, MD Columbia, MO Salt Lake City, UT La Crosse, WI Williamsburg, VA
fee/annum $20 $20 $ 6 - 10 $20 ? $24 $6 $2 - 4 $8+ ยน $2 - 4 $5 $10 $22 - 30
Year approved 2008 2009 2008 2008 2009 2006 2009 2008 2008 2009 2009 2008 2008
Program Name The Green Fund Emory Students Environmental Fund MU Sustainability Program Renewable Energy Fund
Environmental Stewardship Fee Campus Clean Energy Fee Student Sustainability Fee Student Campus Initiative Fund (SCIF) Green Fee
ยน UM College Park instituted a gradually increasing fee amount se to begin at $8 per semester and to increase each year by $2 until a total of $14 per year is reached and fixed. This is the only program to use this type of payment scheme found in this report.
Blocked Programs (4)
Includes programs approved by students but blocked by the administration Institution Cornell Slippery Rock University ยน University of Northern Colorado U. Virginia - Charlottesville
Public/Private Private Public Public Public
Location Ithaca, NY Slippery Rock, PA Greely, CO Charlottesville, VA
Fee/annum $ 6 - 10 $10 ? ?
Year Approved 2007 2008 2008 ?
Program Name Renewable Energy Fee The Green Fund ? ?
ยน Slippery Rock U was the only instance found in this report in which the President offered to pay for increased sustainability programs after a student vote in favor of a sustainability fee was denied by the Board of Trustees.
A-3
Disapproved Programs (4)
Includes programs disapproved by student body or student legislative assembly
Institution U California, Davis University of Portland Rice University Hofstra University
Public/Private Public Private Private Private
Location Davis, CA Portland, OR Houston, TX Hempstead, NY
Fee/annum $4 $20 $20 $25 parking permit
A-4
Year Disapproved 2009 2009 2008 2009
Appendix B: Data Collection and Research Tools 1. Online Student Green Fee Survey Purpose of the research: To understand the experiences of sustainability officers, students, faculty, and administrators who manage and implement sustainability projects financed by student green fees at college and university campuses in the United States. The final report will be an analysis of best practices for managing green fund projects. What you will do in this research: If you decide to participate, you will complete one survey. The questions will be about your institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s student green fee. At the end of the questionnaire, you will be asked about participating in an optional follow-up interview with the principal investigator. Time required: The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Risks: There are no risks anticipated. Benefits: The direct benefit to your institution is that you could learn about best practices of sustainability officers and staff who manage student green fees. Confidentiality: Your responses will be kept confidential. IP address will not be collected. Institutions, who participate in this study, will be grouped into a cohort based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education framework (see http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/). Institutions will be identified and described in terms of their Carnegie Class in the final report. Participation and withdrawal: Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may quit at any time without penalty. You may also skip any question, but continue to complete the rest of the survey. To Contact the Researcher: If you have questions or concerns about this research, please contact: Mieko A. Ozeki Phone: (802) 999-4449; 48 University Place, 403 Billings Center, Burlington, VT 05405 Email: mozeki@fas.harvard.edu. You may also contact the faculty member supervising this work: George Buckley, Assistant Director of the Sustainability and Environmental Management Program, Harvard Extension School, 51 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, (617) 998-8597, and gbuckley@fas.harvard.edu. Whom to contact about your rights in this research, for questions, concerns, suggestions, or complaints that are not being addressed by the researcher, or research-related harm: Jane Calhoun, Harvard University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research, 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Phone: 617-4955459. E-mail: jcalhoun@fas.harvard.edu Please print or save a copy of this page for your records.
* 1. Please indicate that you have read the Online Survey Information Sheet and agree to participate in this study. j k l m n
Yes, I have read the Online Survey Information Sheet and agree to participate in this study.
j k l m n
No, I have read the Online Survey Information Sheet and I will not participate in this study.
2. Type of Degree Granting Institution
* 2. Type of Degree Granting Institution: j k l m n
2-year college (Associates degree)
j k l m n
4-year college (Bachelors and/or Master, Doctoral degree programs)
3. Two-year colleges Please select your college under one of the following institutional controls (private-for-profit, private-not for profit, or
B-1
public). If your institution is not listed, select "N/A" in one of the menus below and then type in the name of your institution in the Other College/University field.
3. What is the name of the two-year college? Private, for-profit
Private, not-for-profit
6
2-year College/Institutional
Public
6
6
control Other College/University (not listed in menus)
4. Four-year Colleges and Universities Please select your college under one of the following institutional controls (private-for-profit, private-not for profit, or public). If your institution is not listed, select "N/A" in one of the menus below and then type in the name of your institution in the Other College/University field.
4. What is the name of the four-year college/university? Private, for-profit 4-year college/Institutional
Private, not-for-profit
6
6
Public
6
control Other College/University (not listed in menus)
5. Green Fund Information (1 of 2) The purpose of these questions is to collect basic information on your institution's green fund.
* 5. Does your institution have a student green fee (revenue amassed from a student fee and used specifically to fund campus sustainability projects)? j k l m n
Yes
j k l m n
No
6. Green Fund Information (2 of 2) The purpose of these questions is to collect basic information on your institution's green fund.
* 6. What is the name of the student green fee? * 7. Is documentation on this student green fee publicly available (i.e. on the Internet)? j k l m n
No
j k l m n
Yes, please provide website URL below:
B-2
8. What is the mission and purpose of the student green fee? 5 6
* 9. What types of projects are funded (select all that apply) c d e f g
N/A
c d e f g
Funding student internships or staff positions
c d e f g
Installation of renewable energy technologies (ex. Solar
c d e f g
Green jobs training
c d e f g
Lecture series
c d e f g
Academic course
panels, wind turbines, etc.)
c d e f g
Energy efficiency retrofits
c d e f g
Installation of non-energy related projects (ex. composting
facility, recycling, garden, etc.)
c d e f g
Supporting non-academic sustainability programs (ex. Eco-
Reps programs, etc.)
c d e f g
Other Project Type (please specify)
* 10. How much money is collected or set aside in the student green fee fund?
($__ per student per academic term. Please type in dollar amount next to the appropriate academic term and "0" next to academic terms that don't apply.) N/A (Enter "0" in this field)
Semester Trimester Quarter Annually
* 11. What is the estimated total amount collected annually (in dollars)? Enter "0" if you do not have a response to this question.
12. Can a student "opt out" of paying the fee or is it mandatory? j k l m n
Yes, students can opt out of paying this green fee.
j k l m n
No, students cannot opt out of paying this green fee. It is a mandatory fee.
* 13. Who is the coordinator or department that manages your student green fund? j k l m n
N/A
j k l m n
Name of student green fee contact person
7. Thank you for participating Thank you for answering the Student Green Fee survey.
B-3
OPTIONAL: The investigator of this research project is interested in conducting follow-up interviews with coordinators, who manage student green fees, to learn how green funded projects are implemented and managed at their institution.
14. If you are interested in participating in this voluntary interview, please provide your email address or phone number below:
8. Researcher contact information Thank you. If you have any questions for the researcher about this study, please contact Mieko Ozeki at mozeki@fas.harvard.edu
B-4
2. Interview Questions for Student Green Managers and Coordinators Consent Form for Interviews Please consider this information carefully before deciding whether to participate in this research. Purpose of the research: To understand the experiences of sustainability officers, students, faculty, and administrators who manage and implement sustainability projects financed by student green fees at college and university campuses in the United States. The final report will be an analysis of best practices for managing green fund projects. What you will do in this research: If you decide to volunteer, you will be asked to participate in one interview. You will be asked several questions. Some of them will be about the development of your student green fee. Others will be about how your institution selects, implements, manages, and evaluates green fund projects. With your oral consent, I will tape record the interviews. You will not be asked to state your name on the recording. Time required: The interview will take approximately 1 hour. Risks: There are no risks anticipated. Benefits: This is a chance for you to tell your story about your experiences concerning management of student green fees. Confidentiality: Your responses to interview questions will be kept confidential. At no time will your actual identity be revealed. Colleges and universities will be grouped into a cohort based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education framework (see http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/). Institutions will be identified and described in terms of their Carnegie Class in the final report. The recording will be destroyed as soon as it has been transcribed. The transcript, without your name, will be kept until the research is complete. The data you give me will be used for a white paper I am currently writing and may be used as the basis for articles or presentations in the future. I will not use your name or information that would identify you in any publications or presentations. Participation and withdrawal: Your participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. You may withdraw by informing me that you no longer wish to participate (no questions will be asked). You may also skip any question during the interview, but continue to participate in the rest of the study. To Contact the Researcher: If you have questions or concerns about this research, please contact: Mieko A. Ozeki Phone: (802) 999-4449; 48 University Place, 403 Billings Center, Burlington, VT 05405 Email: mozeki@fas.harvard.edu. You may also contact the faculty member supervising this work: George Buckley, Assistant Director of the Sustainability and Environmental Management Program, Harvard Extension School, 51 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, (617) 998-8597, and gbuckley@fas.harvard.edu. Whom to contact about your rights in this research, for questions, concerns, suggestions, or complaints that are not being addressed by the researcher, or research-related harm: Jane Calhoun, Harvard University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research, 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 234, Cambridge, MA 02138. Phone: 617-495-5459. E-mail: jcalhoun@fas.harvard.edu
B-5
Campus Student Green Fund Interview Questions History 1. 2. 3. 4.
What year was the student green fee first proposed? Was there a precedent or prior pilot projects that influenced the creation of this fee? What year was this green fee approved? What governance groups at your institution approved this funding mechanism (i.e. student government, senior administration, etc.)? Who made the final approval of this financial mechanism in your institution (i.e. Board of Trustees, senior administration, etc.)? What year was the student fee first collected? Decision makers 1. Is there a formal group (i.e. committee, department, etc.) that makes decisions on how the money from the green fund is spent? Please identify the decision making group. a. What representation does this decision making group have (i.e. the number of students, staff, faculty, administrators involved in this group)? b. Are these representatives appointed and how long is their appointment? c. Is there a charter or bylaw that this group abides by? Does this group make final decisions on projects or do they make recommendations to a senior administrator for final approval? How often does this decision making group meet? a. Are the meetings open to the public? b. Are the meeting minutes publicly available? What are the role(s) within this decision making group? Project selection process 1. How are project proposals solicited (i.e. informational meetings, brochures, newspapers, radio, online, etc.)? 2. Who can apply for this funding (i.e. departments, students, faculty, staff, companies)? 3. What are the project proposal guidelines? 4. What is the format of the project proposal application? a. Are applicants asked to address a specific issue or challenge on campus with their project (i.e. a design challenge with an inefficient building, or addressing a support issue involving campus sustainability efforts)? b. Are applicants allowed to apply for funding that address any sustainability issue on campus? 5.What are the steps involved in selecting, approving, funding, and implementing proposed projects? Please describe this process. a. What is the criterion that approvers use to select projects? b. Can applicants reapply for funding if they have been awarded before or their project has been rejected? 6. Has this process changed over time? B-6
What were the lessons learned during the project selection process by you and/or the decision making group? Implementation process 1. How long does it take to implement approved projects? 2. What departments are involved in implementing: a. Installation projects? b. Retrofit projects? c. Academic projects? d. Student projects? 3. How is the money distributed for approved projects? 4. How is the green fund budget monitored? 5. Are savings from these projects reinvested into the green fund? a. How are savings assessed? b. What percentage of the savings from the project is reinvested? 6. What were the lessons learned during the project implementation stage by you and/or project managers? Evaluation of projects 1. 2. 3. 4.
How are project leaders held accountable for the outcome of their projects? How are green funded projects connected with academic activities on your campus? What metrics are used to evaluate these projects? How often is the public informed about these projects?
B-7
3. Description of Carnegie Classification-Size & Setting Newsroom | FAQs | Contact Us
HOME
ABOUT US
INSTITUTION LOOKUP
PROBLEM SOLVING R&D STANDARD LISTINGS
CONVERSATIONS
CUSTOM LISTINGS
RESOURCES
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS
ONGOING WORK TECHNICAL DETAILS
Home > Carnegie Classifications > Descriptions > Size & Setting Classification
CLASSIFICATIONS
PREVIOUS WORK
SUMMARY TABLES
DOWNLOADS
LINKS
Ne w s & Announc e m e nts
Classification Description
Carnegie and NERCHE announce partnership to continue Community Engagement Classification. More
Size & Setting Classification This classification describes institutions’ size and residential character. Because residential character applies to the undergraduate student body, exclusively graduate/professional institutions are not included.
Carnegie Foundation to update all-inclusive Classifications in 2010. More Cla s s ific a tions FAQs
Size matters. It is related to institutional structure, complexity, culture, finances, and other factors. Indeed, it is probably the most influential omitted variable in the 1970 classification framework. Residential or nonresidential character reflects aspects of the campus environment, student population served, and the mix of programs and services that an institution provides.
Answers to questions you may have about the Carnegie Classifications. More
Four-year institutions are divided into four categories of full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment and three categories of residential character. Neither characteristic implies differences in the quality of undergraduate education, but an institution’s location along the two continua generally corresponds to a distinctive mix of educational challenges and opportunities. Because few two-year institutions serve a residential population, these institutions are classified solely based on FTE enrollment.
Rethinking and Reframing the Carnegie Classification Alexander C. McCormick and Chun-Mei Zhao
The residential character measure is based on two attributes: the proportion of degree-seeking undergraduates who attend full-time and the proportion living in institutionally-owned, -operated, or -affiliated housing. It is important to note the variety of situations of students who do not live in college or university housing. Some are true “commuting” students, while others may live with other students in rental housing on the periphery of campus, and still others are distance education students who rarely or never set foot on a campus. The categories are as follows: VS2: Very small two-year Fall enrollment data show FTE* enrollment of fewer than 500 students at these associate’s degree granting institutions. S2: Small two-year Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 500–1,999 students at these associate’s degree granting institutions. M2: Medium two-year Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 2,000–4,999 students at these associate’s degree granting institutions. L2: Large two-year Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 5,000–9,999 students at these associate’s degree granting institutions. VL2: Very large two-year Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 students at these associate’s degree granting institutions. VS4/NR: Very small four-year, primarily nonresidential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of fewer than 1,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. Fewer than 25 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus** (includes exclusively distance education institutions). VS4/R: Very small four-year, primarily residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of fewer than 1,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. 25-49 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus. VS4/HR: Very small four-year, highly residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of fewer than 1,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. At least half of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus. S4/NR: Small four-year, primarily nonresidential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 1,000–2,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. Fewer than 25 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus (includes exclusively distance education institutions). S4/R: Small four-year, primarily residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 1,000–2,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. 25-49 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus. S4/HR: Small four-year, highly residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 1,000–2,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. At least half of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus. M4/NR: Medium four-year, primarily nonresidential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 3,000–9,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. Fewer than 25 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus (includes exclusively distance education institutions). M4/R: Medium four-year, primarily residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 3,000–9,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. 25-49 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus.
B-7
Re a ding Room
Carnegie's Community-Engagement Classification: Intentions and Insights (PDF) Amy Driscoll Attaining Carnegie's Community-Engagement Classification (PDF) James J. Zuiches and the NC State Community Engagement Task Force from Change (January/February 2008) Ca r ne gie Cla s s ific a tions Ma iling Lis t Join our Mailing List Sign up for our enewsletters to stay connected and informed about our work. Ge tting Sta r te d The Classifications Tutorial is a one-page description of the information and tools on the Classifications section of this Web site.
Carnegie Classifications | Size & Settin… M4/HR: Medium four-year, highly residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 3,000–9,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. At least half of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus. L4/NR: Large four-year, primarily nonresidential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. Fewer than 25 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus (includes exclusively distance education institutions). L4/R: Large four-year, primarily residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. 25-49 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus. L4/HR: Large four-year, highly residential Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. At least half of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus.
* FTE: Full-time equivalent enrollment was calculated as full-time plus one-third part-time. ** On campus is defined as institutionally-owned, -controlled, or -affiliated housing. Classifications are time-specific snapshots of institutional attrib utes and b ehavior b ased on data from 2003 and 2004. Institutions might b e classified differently using a different timeframe.
Institution Lookup
Standard Listings
Custom Listings
Classification Descriptions
Technical Details
Summary Tables
Dow nloads
Links
Contact
B-8 …carnegiefoundation.org/…/size_settin…
2/2
4. Description of Carnegie Basic Classification Newsroom | FAQs | Contact Us
HOME
ABOUT US
INSTITUTION LOOKUP
PROBLEM SOLVING R&D STANDARD LISTINGS
CONVERSATIONS
CUSTOM LISTINGS
RESOURCES
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS
ONGOING WORK TECHNICAL DETAILS
Home > Carnegie Classifications > Descriptions > Basic Classification
Classification Description Basic Classification The Basic Classification is an update of the traditional classification framework developed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 1970 to support its research program, and later published in 1973 for use by other researchers. Although this classification has undergone many changes over the years, the current release involves some significant changes from previous editions. With the advent of several new classifications to complement the Basic classification, more nuanced groupings of institutions can be identified by examining the classifications in combination. The Custom Listings tool provides this functionality.
Overarching Changes Order of presentation. We now present major groupings in order of aggregate enrollment. Single-year data. Previous editions of the Carnegie Classification used a combination of single-year data and multiple-year averages. While using data from several years can smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, it can also diminish the classification's sensitivity to changes. Because the classifications are inherently retrospective, time-specific snapshots, accuracy and timeliness are enhanced by using the most current data available. Exceptions. Although previous editions of the Carnegie Classification identified specific empirical criteria for assigning colleges and universities to categories, some institutions were classified instead on the basis of their history, traditions, and identity. This practice undermined the classification's transparency and replicability, and it led to concerns that the rules were different for certain institutions. With this revision of the classification, we substantially curtailed this practice, because our new classification tools can be used to identify distinct subtypes. We also increased the level of master's degree production separating the Baccalaureate and Master's groups, recognizing the growth of graduate education at primarily undergraduate colleges. In December 2006, we extended the option of reclassification from the Master's to Baccalaureate groups to selected institutions based on their profiles (see Technical Details for further information). The Carnegie Classification system now includes new classification schemes and a Custom Listings tool for aggregating and combining them—to identify points of intersection between classifications, and to create new, customized classifications. This provides a way to explicitly identify special groupings within categories of the Basic classification, identifying contextual factors that were previously not available for examination. We believe this is an appropriate way to overcome the limitations of any single classification. There remain some circumstances in which we have considered requests for special handling: cases where the 2003-04 degree data reflect a verifiable departure from usual patterns; cases where the institutional data combine information from distinct units with different missions and that serve different undergraduate populations (e.g., a degree-completion program serving working adults who attend part time and an undergraduate college serving mostly full-time students); and cases where inclusion among special-focus institutions may not represent the diversity of an institution's programs.
Category-specific Changes Associate's Colleges. For the first time in the Carnegie Classification's history, two-year colleges have been split into subcategories. The categories are based on the work of Stephen Katsinas, Vincent Lacey, and David Hardy at The University of Alabama. The new Undergraduate Profile and Size & Setting classifications also differentiate two-year colleges, so researchers now have several ways to take the diversity of two-year colleges into account. Doctorate-granting Universities. With this edition, doctorate-granting institutions are once again differentiated based on an explicit measure of research activity. We now use a multi-measure index rather than the single measure of federal funding used in previous editions. This approach incorporates several improvements: it is not limited to funding; the funding measures used are not limited to federal funding; and the analysis considers both aggregate and per-capita measures of research activity. Using the new methodology, we have identified three categories of doctorate-granting institutions. Because of these changes, the new categories are not comparable to those previously used (Research I & II and Doctoral I & II; and Doctoral/Research—Extensive and Intensive). We also simplified the degree-production criterion for inclusion among doctorate-granting institutions. Previous editions defined this group as institutions awarding at least 20 doctoral degrees per year or at least 10 such degrees per year spanning at least three fields. For this edition we dropped the latter criterion. Institutions with lower levels of doctoral degree production can be identified using the Graduate Instructional Program classification. Master's Colleges and Universities. We now split master's institutions into three categories based on the volume of master's degree production. We have also increased the level of master's degree production separating Baccalaureate and Master's institutions. Baccalaureate Colleges. Although the criteria for subcategories are unchanged from the 2000 edition, we have discontinued the use of the “Liberal Arts” terminology in favor of a term that more transparently describes the classification criteria. (Both “liberal arts college” and “liberal arts education” signify more than undergraduates' major field concentration.) We also refined the mapping of major fields to arts & sciences or professions (for more information, refer to Undergraduate Instructional Program Technical Details). Note that the Undergraduate Instructional Program classification offers finer differentiation of the distribution of undergraduate majors, while also identifying institutions where arts & sciences and professional fields are represented among majors in roughly equal proportions. Because we increased the threshold level of master's degree production separating Baccalaureate and Master's institutions, some institutions that previously would
CLASSIFICATIONS
PREVIOUS WORK
SUMMARY TABLES
DOWNLOADS
LINKS
Ne w s & Announc e m e nts Carnegie and NERCHE announce partnership to continue Community Engagement Classification. More Carnegie Foundation to update all-inclusive Classifications in 2010. More Cla s s ific a tions FAQs Answers to questions you may have about the Carnegie Classifications. More Re a ding Room Rethinking and Reframing the Carnegie Classification Alexander C. McCormick and Chun-Mei Zhao Carnegie's Community-Engagement Classification: Intentions and Insights (PDF) Amy Driscoll Attaining Carnegie's Community-Engagement Classification (PDF) James J. Zuiches and the NC State Community Engagement Task Force from Change (January/February 2008) Ca r ne gie Cla s s ific a tions Ma iling Lis t Join our Mailing List Sign up for our enewsletters to stay connected and informed about our work. Ge tting Sta r te d The Classifications Tutorial is a one-page description of the information and tools on the Classifications section of this Web site.
11/26/2010
Carnegie Classifications | Basic Classific…
have been classified among Master's Colleges and Universities II are now included among Baccalaureate Colleges. Special Focus Institutions (previously called Specialized Institutions). In addition to the name change, we have refined our methodology for identifying special-focus institutions, generally requiring higher levels of single-field or related-field concentration for designation as a special-focus institution. We are also using more sources of information to identify these institutions (see Technical Details for more information). We also made some category changes: “Schools of engineering and technology” has been split into two categories, and the “Teacher's colleges” category was eliminated due to the small number of eligible institutions (now listed among “Other special-focus institutions”). Finally, service academies are no longer automatically included among special-focus institutions; they are classified according to the same criteria as other institutions.
Categories (Refer to Technical Details for category definitions and data sources.) Associate's Colleges. Includes institutions where all degrees are at the associate's level, or where bachelor's degrees account for less than 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees. Excludes institutions eligible for classification as Tribal Colleges or Special Focus Institutions. Assoc/Pub-R-S: Associate's—Public Rural-serving Small Assoc/Pub-R-M: Associate's—Public Rural-serving Medium Assoc/Pub-R-L: Associate's—Public Rural-serving Large Assoc/Pub-S-SC: Associate's—Public Suburban-serving Single Campus Assoc/Pub-S-MC: Associate's—Public Suburban-serving Multicampus Assoc/Pub-U-SC: Associate's—Public Urban-serving Single Campus Assoc/Pub-U-MC: Associate's—Public Urban-serving Multicampus Assoc/Pub-Spec: Associate's—Public Special Use Assoc/PrivNFP: Associate's—Private Not-for-profit Assoc/PrivFP: Associate's—Private For-profit Assoc/Pub2in4: Associate's—Public 2-year Colleges under Universities Assoc/Pub4: Associate's—Public 4-year, Primarily Associate's Assoc/PrivNFP4: Associate's—Private Not-for-profit 4-year, Primarily Associate's Assoc/PrivFP4: Associate's—Private For-profit 4-year, Primarily Associate's
Doctorate-granting Universities. Includes institutions that award at least 20 doctoral degrees per year (excluding doctorallevel degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges. RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity) DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities
Master's Colleges and Universities. Generally includes institutions that award at least 50 master's degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees per year. (Some institutions above the master's degree threshold are included among Baccalaureate Colleges, and some below the threshold are included among Master's Colleges and Universities; see Technical Details.) Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges. Master's/L: Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs) Master's/M: Master's Colleges and Universities (medium programs) Master's/S: Master's Colleges and Universities (smaller programs)
Baccalaureate Colleges. Includes institutions where baccalaureate degrees represent at least 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees and that award fewer than 50 master's degrees or 20 doctoral degrees per year. (Some institutions above the master's degree threshold are also included; see Technical Details.) Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges. Bac/A&S: Baccalaureate Colleges—Arts & Sciences Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges—Diverse Fields Bac/Assoc: Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges
Special Focus Institutions. Institutions awarding baccalaureate or higher-level degrees where a high concentration of degrees is in a single field or set of related fields. Excludes Tribal Colleges. Spec/Faith: Theological seminaries, Bible colleges, and other faith-related institutions Spec/Medical: Medical schools and medical centers Spec/Health: Other health profession schools Spec/Engg: Schools of engineering Spec/Tech: Other technology-related schools Spec/Bus: Schools of business and management Spec/Arts: Schools of art, music, and design Spec/Law: Schools of law Spec/Other: Other special-focus institutions
Tribal Colleges. Colleges and universities that are members of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, as identified in IPEDS Institutional Characteristics. Tribal: Tribal Colleges
B-9
Appendix C
Research Results
1. Active Student Green Fee Programs in U.S. as of November 12, 2010 (80 institutions/87 green fees) Based on Bintliffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s May 2010 survey, current public documentation, and a survey conducted in October 2010. This list includes programs that have been approved by student legislature and institutional decision-making body (i.e. Board of Trustees, Board of Regents); and currently implemented on their respective campuses. This list reflects the current rates for the specified fee at each institution during an academic year (excluding summer sessions).
Institution (listed alphabetically)
Institutional control
City/Town
State
Student green fee name
Year Approved
Fee amount
Fee Academic term
Appalachian State University
Public
Boone
NC
Renewable Energy Initiative (REI)
2005
$5.00
Semester
Austin Peay State University
Public
Clarksville
TN
Sustainable Campus Fee
2007
$10.00
Semester
Bemidji State University
Public
Bemidji
MN
Green Fee Mini-Grants
2009
$5.00
Semester
Bowling Green State University
Public
Bowling Green
OH
2009
$5.00
Semester
California State University-Chico
Public
Chico
CA
Student Green Initiative Fund Associated Students Sustainability Fund
2006
$5.00
Semester
Central Oregon Community College
Public
Bend
OR
Blue Sky renewable energy fee
2006
$0.25
Credit
Green Fund
2007
$20.00
Annually
2007
$20.00
Annually
Centre College
Private not-for-profit
Danville
KY
Coastal Carolina University
Public
Conway
SC
College of William and Mary
Public
Williamsburg
VA
Green Fee
2008
$15.00
Semester
Private not-for-profit
New London
CT
Renewable Energy Fund
2001
$25.00
Annually
Public
Johnson City
TN
Campus Sustainability Fee
2008
$5.00
Semester
St. Davids
PA
Wind Energy Fee
2006
$30.00
Annually
Public
Olympia
WA
Clean Energy Fund
2005
$1.00
Credit
Private not-for-profit
Oneonta
NY
Pine Lake Activity Fee
2004
$15.00
Semester
Connecticut College East Tennessee State University Eastern University Evergreen State College Hartwick College Georgia College and State University Green Mountain College
Private not-for-profit
Public Private not-for-profit
Milledgeville
GA
Sustainability (green) fee
2010
$5.00
Semester
Poultney
VT
Student Campus Greening Fund
2005
$30.00
Annually
Humboldt State University
Public
Arcata
CA
Humboldt Energy Independence Fund
2007
$10.00
Semester
Illinois State University
Public
Normal
IL
Student Sustainability Fund
2010
$5.00
Semester
Johnson County Community College
Public
Overland Park
KS
Student Green Fee
2010
$19.00
Semester
C-1
Year Approved
Fee amount
Fee Academic term
Institution (listed alphabetically)
Institutional control
City/Town
State
Student green fee name
Lewis & Clark College
Private not-for-profit
Portland
OR
Green Energy Fee
2008
$85.00
Annually
Huntington
WV
Student Green Fee
2009
$5.00
Semester
Green Energy Fee
2007
$5.00
Trimester
2004
$2.00
Semester
$3.50
Semester
Marshall University
Public
Mercyhurst College
Private not-for-profit
Erie
PA
Messiah College
Private not-for-profit
Grantham
PA
Montana State University, Bozeman
Public
Bozeman
MT
ASMSU Student Sustainability Fee
2009
North Seattle Community College
Public
Seattle
WA
Sustainability Fund
2009
Northeastern Illinois University
Public
Chicago
IL
2007
$3.00
Semester
Northern Arizona University
Public
Flagstaff
AZ
2010
$5.00
Semester
Northland College
Private not-for-profit
Ashland
WI
Campus Green Fee Northern Arizona University Green Fund Northland College Renewable Energy Fund
2000
$40.00
Semester
Oberlin College
Private not-for-profit
Oberlin
2008
$20.00
Semester
Occidental College
Private not-for-profit
Los Angeles
CA
The EDGE Fund Renewable Energy and Sustainability Fund
2007
$10.00
Semester
Public
Corvallis
OR
Sustainability Fund
2007
$8.50
Term
Pacific Lutheran University
Private not-for-profit
Tacoma
WA
Green Energy Fund
2007
$20.00
Annually
Point Loma Nazarene University
Private not-for-profit
San Diego
CA
Green Fund
2009
$5.00
Semester
2009
$0.10
Credit
2010
$9.00
Annually
Oregon State University
Quarter
Portland Community College
Public
Portland
OR
Rice University Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Private not-for-profit
Houston
TX
The Green Initiative Fund Rice Endowment for Sustainable Energy Technology (RESET)
Public
Carbondale
IL
Green Tag Fee
2009
$10.00
Semester
Southern Oregon University
Public
Ashland
OR
Green Energy Fee
2007
$15.00
Semester
St. Mary's College of Maryland
Public
St. Mary's City
MD
Green Energy Allocation Fund
2007
$25.00
Semester
Tennessee Technological University
Public
Cookeville
TN
Campus Sustainability Fee
2005
$8.00
Semester
Texas A&M University
Public
College Station
TX
Aggie Green Fund
2010
$3.00
Semester
Texas State University, San Marcos
Public
San Marcos
TX
Environmental Service Fee
2004
$2.00
Semester
University of Arizona
Public
Tucson
AZ
Green Fund
2010
$24.00
Annually
University of California, Berkeley
Public
Berkeley
CA
The Green Initiative Fund
2007
$5.50
Semester
University of California, Irvine
Public
Irvine
CA
The Green Initiative Fund
2009
$3.50
Semester
C-2
Fee amount
Fee Academic term
Institution (listed alphabetically) University of California, Los Angeles
Institutional control
City/Town
State
Student green fee name
Year Approved
Public
Los Angeles
CA
The Green Initiative Fund
2008
$4.00
Quarter
University of California, Riverside
Public
Riverside
CA
The Green Action Plan Fund
2010
$2.50
Quarter
University of California, San Diego
Public
La Jolla
CA
The Green Initiative Fund
2009
$6.00
Quarter
University of California, Santa Barbara
Public
Santa Barbara
CA
The Green Initiative Fund
2006
$2.60
Quarter
Campus Sustainability Programs Fee
2003
$6.00
Quarter
Renewable Energy Fee
2006
$3.00
Quarter
Sustainability Office Fee Sustainable Food, Health, and wellness fee Student Health Center Green Building Fee
2010
$2.75
Quarter
2010
$3.75
Quarter
2010
$5.20
Quarter
Solar Energy
2008
$5.00
Semester
2007
$5.00
Semester
Environmental Center Fee
1973
$16.55
Semester
Student Bus and Bike Programs Capital Construction Fee
1991 2004
$71.00 $200.00
Semester Semester
Environmental Improvement Initiative/Sustainable CU Fund
2005
$2.80
Semester
The Green Initiative Fund
2010
$3.00
Semester
Cleaner Energy Technologies
2003
$2.00
Semester
Sustainable Campus Environmental Fee Environmental Improvement: Recycling Fee Sustainability and Renewable Energy Fee
2007
$14.00
Semester
1997
$4.00
Semester
2007
$0.25
Semester
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Community College of Denver Metropolitan State College of Denver, Auraria Campus University of Colorado at Denver, Auraria Campus
University of Colorado, Boulder
Public
Public
Santa Cruz
CA
Colorado Springs
CO
Public Public
Sustainable Campus Program Fee Denver
CO
Public
Public
Boulder
CO
University of Georgia
Public
Athens
GA
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
Public
Champaign
IL
University of Kansas, Main Campus
Public
Lawrence
KS
C-3
*Replaced Clean Energy Fee, 20042007.
Institution (listed alphabetically)
Year Approved
Fee amount
Fee Academic term
Institutional control
City/Town
State
Student green fee name
University of Kentucky University of Maryland, College Park
Public
Lexington
KY
Environmental Stewardship Fee
2009
$0.75
Semester
Public
College Park
MD
Clean Energy Fund
2007
$3.00
Semester
University of Memphis
Public
Memphis
TN
Sustainable Campus Fee
2007
$10.00
Semester
University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Public
Las Vegas
NV
Rebel Recycling Fee
1995
$1.00
Semester
Public
Chapel Hill
NC
Renewable Energy Fee
2004
$4.00
Semester
Public
Charlotte
NC
Charlotte Green Initiative Fund
2007
$2.00
Semester
University of North Texas
Public
Denton
TX
Environmental Services Fee
2010
$5.00
Semester
University of Oregon, Eugene University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
Public
Eugene
OR
Student Sustainability Fund
2004
$2.00
Semester
Public
Chattanooga
TN
Green Fee
2007
$10.00
Semester
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Public
Knoxville
TN
Student Environmental Initiatives Fund
2005
$16.00
Semester
University of Texas, San Antonio
Public
San Antonio
TX
Green Fee
2010
$5.00
Semester
University of the South, Sewanee
Private not-for-profit
Sewanee
TN
Renewable Energy Resolution
2004
$45.00
Semester
University of Utah University of Vermont and State Agricultural College
Public
Salt Lake City
UT
Student Campus Initiative Fund (SCIF)
2009
$2.50
Semester
Public
Burlington
VT
Clean Energy Fund
2008
$10.00
Semester
University of Washington, Seattle
Public
Seattle
WA
Campus Sustainability Fund
2010
$5.00
Quarter
University of Wisconsin, Green Bay
Public
Green Bay
WI
Environmental Sustainability Fund
2010
$10.00
Semester
University of Wisconsin, La Crosse
Public
La Crosse
WI
Green Fund
2008
$5.00
Semester
University of Wyoming
Public
Laramie
WY
Green Fee
2009
$8.00
Semester
Private not-for-profit
Middletown
CT
Green Fund
2009
$5.00
Semester
Western Michigan University
Public
Kalamazoo
MI
Sustainability Fee
2010
$8.00
Semester
Western State College of Colorado
Public
Gunnison
CO
Sustainability Fund
2010
$4.50
Semester
Western Washington University
Public
Bellingham
WA
Renewable Energy Fee
2005
$7.00
Quarter
University of Missouri, Columbia
Public
Columbia
MO
Student Sustainability Initiatives Funds
2009
$1.00
Semester
Wesleyan University
C-4
2.
Map and Table of U.S. colleges and universities with active student green fund programs (Source Microsoft MapPoint速)
State AZ- Arizona CA- California CO- Colorado CT- Connecticut GA- Georgia IL- Illinois KS- Kansas KY- Kentucky MD- Maryland MI- Michigan
# of School s 2 11 6 2 2 4 2 2 2 1
MN- Minnesota MO- Missouri MT- Montana NC- North Carolina NV- Nevada NY- New York OH- Ohio OR- Oregon PA- Pennsylvania SC- South Carolina
C-5
1 1 1 3 1 1 2 6 3 1
TN- Tennessee TX- Texas UT- Utah VA- Virginia VT- Vermont WA- Washington WI- Wisconsin WV- West Virginia WY- Wyoming
7 5 1 1 2 5 3 1 1