The Sustainable Endowments Institute has released a report about colleges’ green revolving funds, in which colleges invest a chunk of money in energy efficiency or other projects with clear and strong returns on investment. The topic has been of increasing interest to the institute’s founder, Mark Orlowski, who has been appearing at conferences around the country, encouraging colleges to devote some of their funds to these green projects.
The report, called “Greening the Bottom Line: The Trend Toward Green Revolving Funds on Campus,” provides an overview of revolving funds and their performance at various institutions across the country. And the report tries to emphasize that green revolving funds can yield returns even beyond the first several years, when “low-hanging fruit” might be picked: “While most funds are new, others have been in existence for a decade or more,” such as the revolving fund at Western Michigan University, which was started in 1980, and the well-known fund at Harvard University, which was started in 2001.
“The results of the survey indicate that green revolving funds are able to maintain a high return on investment both in their initial phases as well as over the long run,” the report says.
That “high return” was, in many cases documented in the report, high indeed. To name only a few: Western Michigan’s annual return on investment was 47 percent—although the amount of the fund was fairly small, at $1-million for 101 projects. Harvard’s $12-million fund yielded an annual 30-percent return on 185 projects. The California Institute of Technology’s $8-million fund got a 33-percent annual return from 13 projects since 2009. And the University of Colorado at Boulder’s $500,000 fund , which covered five projects, saw a 38-percent annual return over the past three years.
The report also includes a section on some of the main challenges to establishing and running a revolving fund, such as accurately accounting for savings, collaboration among departments on campus to tackle a project, and finding the staff members who can take on new projects.
Follow Buildings & Grounds through your favorite RSS reader:
30 Responses to Report on Green Revolving Funds Outlines Challenges and Benefits
frankschmidt - March 7, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Meaningless. The data reflect inputs more than anything else. Fill up Chicago State with students who would be admitted to UC or NU and watch the cost per graduating student go down.
11185500 - March 7, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Or, conversely, fill up Northwestern with the students admitted to Chicago State and see the costs go up?
22238751 - March 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Do the above data exclude students who take courses at Chicago State without intending to pursue a degree, e.g., those who might want to take a course or two for some kind of professional upgrade?
Babagranny - March 7, 2011 at 5:31 pm
To say that the completion of the degree is the only output of a university would mean that the student learns nothing until that last credit hour. Of course there is value without a bachelor’s degree. Has anyone tracked these individual students to see if they become productive tax-paying citizens? Have any of them stopped out and then re-entered at another educational institution? And who ever said that educating the most at-risk wouldn’t be more expensive than educating the least at-risk? Even if they enter the lowest tier of the tax-paying ranks, that’s better than being in the tax-receiving ranks. There seems to be lots of junk science even among the “educated” scientists.
jvwellman - March 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
While we at the Delta Cost Project are happy to have our metrics spotlighted by Mr. Vedder, using the 6-year graduation rate as a denominator against a single year’s FTE adjusted spending amount creates a useless figure that doesn’t get close to a good measure of cost per graduate. We all know the limitations of the federal cohort grad rates, which simply ignore around half of the students who ultimately get a degree or credential in higher education. We’re the first to say we haven’t developed a good way to measure cost per degrees, but the measures presented here are based on bad math. Our own estimates of average academic spending per degree (also using national data) tell a very different story, with Northwestern and University of Chicago spending more than twice as much per degree than either Chicago State or the University of Illinois. More sophisticated measures require institution-level data, a picture of one way to do that can be found in Nate Johnson’s paper on the subject: http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/johnson3-09_WP.pdf . So, thanks again to Mr. Vedder for raising the point, and to his consistent success at being an effective contrarian. We do agree that lower cost doesn’t mean cost effectiveness. But on this one, we think he got it wrong.
11223435 - March 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Thanks, and thanks a whole bunch for summarizing what would doubtless have taken 12 others 12 times as long to explain–and not as clearly. Now, if the Chronicle would just require Darth Vedder, He Who Cannot Be Pleased by Higher Education, to wear a sign around his neck with jvwellman’s explanation written on it for…oh, I don’t know…how about until the next time he posts?
Brian Abel Ragen - March 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm
One of the purposes of a college is to help students determine whether or not academic pursuits–and the sort of life they prepare a person for–suit them. When students decide they are not, neither they nor their universities have failed. Less selective colleges will naturally have more students who have not made that determination already.
“Retention” is not something that colleges should value. It only matters to those who see colleges as manufacturers of credentials and students who leave without degrees as wasted raw materials.
11223435 - March 7, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Very well said. And short and clear.
stinkcat - March 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Not only is northwestern cheaper, but you also get free dirty shows!
blue_state_academic - March 7, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Another great post from Rich “Keep it Simple and Misuse Data” Vedder. Ever since his book came out — where he concluded that faculty today are better off than when he started as a professor because he observed that they drive better cars — Rich has been playing fast and loose with data. The Chronicle should stop giving him a soapbox and let him retreat to his research “Center” to put out his missives.
PMinMA - March 8, 2011 at 7:07 am
What editorial standards allow this article to be published? Between the sloppy use of vague metrics and the admitted ignorance of the specifics of the schools involved, the resulting “research” should not survive beyond the rough-draft stage in an undergraduate seminar on education. Leave this sort of pseudoanalytical sensationalism for Fox.
mbelvadi - March 8, 2011 at 8:43 am
I disagree about that being a purpose of college. It should be a purpose of the last couple of years of high school. If the high schools were doing their jobs properly, there wouldn’t be so much waste of far more expensive public resources (univ bldgs and staff cost more than high schools’) as students discover too late that college doesn’t “suit” them.
jeff_winger - March 8, 2011 at 9:05 am
This article is a FAIL!
haohtt - March 8, 2011 at 9:43 am
Someone at a meeting I recently attended asked the question, “Why isn’t Chicago State put out of business?” Well, for a lot of reasons. It is in one of the more dangerous areas of South Chicago (as is seen as highly benficial to the area), its student population is over 80% African-American and had a strong advocate in the leadership of the Illinois legislature. Chicago State has had its share of both dedicated and less-than-dedicated leadership.
haohtt - March 8, 2011 at 9:44 am
or CNN or MSNBC
electronicmuse - March 8, 2011 at 10:47 am
Good math. Weird perspective. Some who actually pay tuition at those respective institutions might appreciate the real-world lower cost of ol’ State U. Maybe this is somewhat like golf: “different cohorts [horses] for different courses.” Many better-to-do kids graduate because they can afford to hang around long enough, and they are expected to graduate. Why? Because they can afford to hang around long enough at an institution that expects kids to graduate.
As to the aggregate stastics angle: it seems that the “average” human being would have one testicle and one breast. Math that is accurate is not necessarily truthful, and certainly not always useful.
electronicmuse - March 8, 2011 at 10:53 am
Please, could we academics at least keep our icons straight, in behalf of a student body that is more interested in such than their [joke!] “studies?”
It’s VADER, Darth VADER. Lord VADER. Cue: “Wheeze, sputter.”
It’s apparent some of you will never win “Trivial Pursuit.”
electronicmuse - March 8, 2011 at 10:57 am
Yes, courses DESIGNED for horses. And, some folks are never even allowed on the course.
edwoof - March 8, 2011 at 11:37 am
Graduation rates and the associated cost per graduate seem like a very tenuous way to measure whether a college is sucessful or “failed”. I certainly agree that far too many students are pushed to college where they are falsey promised a middle class life upon graduation.
The main problem in the US is that compared to Europe, we do not have a defined course to the trades and other careers. I work with a shipping company in Germany which hires three or four trainees every year. These trainess spend three days a week at our offices working under the suprevision of shipping professionals and then two days a week in State-sponsored classes. Their training period is two years and upon their successful completion, they receive the designation of Schifffahrtskaufman or frau and a certificate. This certificate entitles them to apply for any entry level jobs in transportation. In the US, we do not have the equivalent of practical and theoretical training. It is possible to obtain a law degree and to begin practicing law, without ever having even spoken with a practicing attorney. This situtaion does not exist in most other countries.
I’m sure that many of the students who attend Chicago State U would be far better off if they could enter some sort of apprenticeship. The poor retention and graduation rates at US colleges reflects the fact that a significant number of students shouldn’t be in college in the first place but also, the fact that in the US there are few other places to go for a structured introduction to the world away from home. In sshort, many students attend college because they don’t see any other option.
11223435 - March 8, 2011 at 11:59 am
Which letter in “PUN” confused you?
whadams11 - March 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Being a CSU undergraduate and graduate student was one of the greatest experience of my life. There are many reasons why people enrolled into CSU. Myself, I enrolled because it was a perfect fit for me to continue my education while taking care of my daughter. Although I could have attended schools like Loyola, University of Illinois-Chicago and Urbana, CSU had given me the tools to become successful as a future scholar thanks to wonderful faculty members and staff. As I perpare to enroll into a Ph.D program at a Big Ten University this fall, I give CSU credit in developing my critical and analytical skills. It not always the name of the university that make you successful, it what you get out of the university.
whadams11 - March 8, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Being at CSU as a undergraduate and graduate was one of the greatest experiences of my life. There are different reasons why students make the decision to attend CSU. Myself, I enrolled into the university because it allowed me to have a flexible schedule to continue my education while working to take care of my daughther.
Although I was accepted into institutions like Loyola, UIC and Urbana, I did not miss a beat in developing my critical and analytical skills at CSU. I was very fortunate to learn from outstanding and wonderful faculty members and staff at CSU. As I prepare to enroll into a Ph.D. program at a Big Ten University, I give CSU all the credit for preparing.
We need to remember Its not the name of the institution that make you successful, its what you get out the institution.
edwoof - March 8, 2011 at 5:13 pm
You go, whadams11!
And congratulations!
11193062 - March 9, 2011 at 9:19 am
Very irresponsible “analysis.” Why didn’t you indicate that Chicago State’s endowment, which provides overall support, is $2 million, while Northwestern’s is over $5 BILLION. Chicago State is 70% Pell as you indicated, while Northwestern is less than 10%. The median SAT at Northwesten is about 500 points higher than Chicago State. 36% of Chicago State students are part time, versus 11% at Northwestern. Finally, 8.8% of Northwestern stuidents are over the age of 25, while 52.2% of Chicago State students are non-traditional. (source: Ed Trust)
You should read “Placing College Graduation Rates in Context: How 4-Year College Graduation Rates Vary With Selectivity and the Size of Low-Income Enrollment” (2008) by NCES. It fully explains the variation in rates.
This analysis, like most of those you do about HBCUs, is shameful at best as you selective use data to make a point rather than inform. You simply can’t compare two fundamentally different institutions unless you factor in a number of key variables. Research clearly indicates it is more costly to educate Chicago State’s population, and they are terribly under-resourced. Why you didn’t add in these key variables reduces your credibility and makes your blog nothing more than propaganda.
Walter M. Kimbrough
President
Philander Smith College
eryx1959 - March 9, 2011 at 9:42 pm
“I suspect Chicago State is an institution serving mostly low income students who are the first in their family to attend college” says it all. As usual, Vedder does not know, and what he doesn’t know, he speculates upon (makes up).
“I have long observed that the private/public school price differential to students is exaggerated because students at private schools are far more likely to graduate (and in four years, at that) than at public ones.” Private colleges are not Universities. In many cases, they offer a limited range of courses and students are marched through a curriculum that has few options.
“(indeed, over 70 percent of entering freshmen at Chicago State are Pell Grant recipients)” Indeed, I was a Pell Grant recipient (which paid for most of my books and fees, but not my tuition), so what’s your point?
“They are on the vanguard of those schools trying to implement President Obama’s goal of more college graduates”. We are on the vanguard of involving underserved communities in higher educational opportunities (including postgraduate study), which requires a huge investment in faculty time and energy. If President Obama has done anything to help CSU, I haven’t noticed it.
“this little exercise suggests the cost of getting more college graduates by reaching out to more lower-income students may be very, very high indeed.” You exercised yourself little, all right. And the cost of not doing this outreach would be even higher.
mrferrari - May 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm
As a former professor and university president who also has spent seven years as an academic search consultant, I concur that there is need for reform in faculty (and administrative) hiring. I concur that faculty hiring should be in the hands of the faculty, but faculty could benefit greatly be having professional assistance in key aspects of the process, from developing detailed profiles of the competencies needed to vigorously identifying outstanding candidates that really match the needs of the department to interviewing approaches that make sense (certainly abandoning telephonic calls and instead using Skype or I-Chat in the preliminary stages), and in-depth referencing in place of the perfunctory approaches too often used.
shushufindi - May 10, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Academic hiring is a complex and dynamic social process and I doubt it can be streamlined and standardized across all institutions. Departments may wish to recruit and hire in a timely and efficient manner, but then must wait for administrative approvals at each step of the process which slows things considerably. And it is often the case that faculty members are not in full agreement on their department’s needs and the merits of different candidates’ credentials. I doubt human resources professionals can do a better job of identifying a department’s “needed competencies,” but they might offer some guidance on how to improve the communications between hiring departments and the candidates they have attracted. Many departments and chairpersons of search committees fail miserably in the communications department.
valentino - May 12, 2011 at 1:13 pm
There is certainly a better way to hire faculty if your current selection process is contributing and magnifying the shortcoming you mention here.
I would highly recommend adapting aspects of corporate hiring/selection processes that are focused on: quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness. The problem with a dysfunctional selection process is that it hurts the hiring entity both internally and externally. Candidates caught-up in good or bad hiring processes tend to share that experience throughout the academic community. And before you know it–you’re getting declines on job offers and invitations to interview. In this Facebook, Twitter & U-Tube Age–you don’t want to be the butt of negative commentary if you can help it.
j20craig - May 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm
As a faculty and former participant of search committees I will agree strongly with the idea that the hiring process in academia needs improvement. I have also been on the receiving end of this process and it is not fun waiting and waiting for notifications or progress reports on the hiring process. Giving these committee members some sympathy, let us be truthful; these are ancillary duties for faculty involved in these search committees. The process is very grueling, evaluating many packages, and assessing the most ideal candidate. If you talk with many who are out there seeking faculty positions, you will hear these stories: Most committees are very conscious of being fair and responsive but often all who have applied rarely receive final feedback. I disagree with the notion that faculty have to run these committees because if you have a well trained HR staff that is communicating with the client (faculty or department) these professionals will certainly do a better, timely and more efficient job. Let us admit that there is a notion of “not wanting to let go” of this process that has many institutions not wanting to allow to handle these duties. If you do not believe this can work, check the many examples of institutions that “out-source” the national search for senior executive positions to executive search firms. These firms are merely executive level HR firms that perform outstanding services at an attractive price.
Cherisse Gardner - February 22, 2012 at 11:54 am
I can imagine a day when this is realized as an interpretive device providing a way for non-signers to interact with the deaf.