Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be able to meet with you this afternoon and give you the President's annual report on the University. This afternoon, what I would like to do is really give a blended presentation that involves some review of the accomplishments and challenges of the past year, discusses a bit the short term and intermediate goals that we have, and then fold those into the long range plan that was just adopted by the University's Board of Governors at the meeting in St. Louis last week.
If you think about the long range plan and some of the implications I did want to emphasize as context some of the following factors. First, for us to have long range success you do need to address on an annual and maybe every two or three year basis some near term goals that are linked to the ultimate achievements you want this University to stand for. So, as we set the near term and intermediate goals, we do want to see that there is a clear connection between them and the long range success of the institution. As you know, if you have followed the development of the long range plan, we have done that around five goals and have entitled the plan "Imagining and Making Missouri's Future" which is a coalescence of two of the goals of the plan.
We do need to be nimble with plans. Plans are a guide, they're not a jailer. And so, they should lead us in certain directions, but they don't take us captive. And when we need to make a revision or when we need to make a mid-course adjustment in plans, we'll do that and do that in a process in which the University's engaged in a discussion of is it time to make some changes in what we set for ourselves. And the plan I think does express the essence of what the purpose and accountability of what public universities should be. The public universities aren't public just because the state appropriates money to us. It's not public just because of policies and procedures that we have as a result of being a state institution or agency. They're public because they have a mission that our teaching and our research and our service are to be in the interest of public benefits and social progress. And that then translates into accountability. We need to be very clear in stating what our goals for the institution will be. We need to be explicit and public in measuring those goals and then we use the results of that measurement to talk to ourselves as well as our external constituents about how we get better.
The five goals and I will go very quickly on this because I trust you have seen them by now: Democratizing Society, Incubating New Ideas, Imagining Missouri's Future, Making Missouri's Future, and Modeling Ethical and Effective Behavior. And I would really like to take the rest of the presentation and organize it around these five goals with that blend of reflection back on what we've done, and projection ahead about what we need to do.
Democratizing Society had five elements to it in the long range plan and we're hard at work on all five of these both in terms of this last year and what we're doing this year. An effective enrollment management strategy that aims at the goal of achieving modest growth in the University's enrollment. Strengthen distance learning by which I mean integrate it more into the academic planning that our colleges and departments do so that it is less of a segregated element of the university than it is part of the delivery that we can count on in terms of our educational programs and how they're planned in the academic units. Distinctive tuition policies; we'll talk more about that in a minute. Effective advising, a feature for which Missouri State University has won many awards, and a quality that we need to continue. I think it does set us apart a bit from some other institutions that we take advising seriously here, professional advising as well as the advising that our faculty do in the disciplines. And then some new approaches to scholarships and financial aid.
I know this is a bit murky in terms of the color, but let me tell you what it illustrates: this is the personal benefit that comes from participating in higher education. On the right, you see the median annual earnings in 2004 dollars associated with various levels of education. And the one that we always like to point out because it involves us and its also a nice round number that people appreciate is that if you look at the difference between a high school graduate with about $31,000 of annual income and a college graduate with about $50,000 of annual income, you stretch that across a lifetime, there's a million dollar premium that comes from having a baccalaureate degree. If you think about what our tuition costs, and you translate that tuition of four years or five years and you look at the return on investment, a college education beats the stock market. Even in its good years it beats the stock market. On the left what you see is the premium that comes in reducing unemployment. Where at high school graduates the average unemployment in 2005 was 4.7 and for a college graduate it is 2. I think that is 2.6 – just about cut it in half, about a 45% reduction in unemployment. So there are tangible benefits for participation in higher education and that is why enrollment management and effective tuition policies are so important in terms of access.
CAP-IT, you're I think familiar with the fact that CAP-IT was the tuition policy with three options that we introduced this year. We've had 2,200 students in the first year select one of the two new options, which is a lock in two year rate or a pre-pay rate for prepaying for two, three or four years at the 2006 tuition level. I don't think any of us anticipated that we would have 2,200 students in the first year sign up for one of those two options. Now the vast majority of students have signed up for the lock in – the two year lock in. But, this is an exciting development, it's been very well received by external constituents. I think it puts us on a very solid footing in terms of talking about this institutions policy with respect to affordable education and this will be a real interesting year for us to look at how do students respond as we go forward in the next year with these options and particularly in terms of our current students in which the two-year lock in may make a lot of sense.
Expanded need-based scholarships: we made a commitment that over the next few years we would put one million dollars more into need-based financial aid. This first year we have already put $350,000 toward that million dollar pledge and we've had a very nice endowment from private funding made by Mike and Barbara Ingram that will allow us to award 5 or 6 need-based scholarships to graduates at Parkview High School. That is going to be a strategy that we pursue pretty aggressively is looking for private investment in the endowment to help with these need-based scholarships.
MOGO, the Missouri Outreach Graduate Opportunity scholarship: first year up with that, a particular enhancement for the scholarship for students from outside of Missouri coming to our graduate programs. We sweetened the pot for the Continuing the Tradition scholarship, that's for the children and grandchildren of Missouri State alumni. And all of these go towards helping us achieve this goal of modest enrollment growth at the same time that we continue to maintain, if not increase, academic standards.
I want to give you a little context now for the importance of scholarships and tuition policies. I'm going to talk a little bit about funding for higher education in Missouri and compare this decade with national figures and also with our own history. In 1980, 82% of a student's educational expenses at one of the four-year institutions were paid by the State of Missouri. This year, 46% is paid for by the State for those students attending a four-year institution. Another way to look at it is that in 1980 16.8% of the state's budget was dedicated to higher education. That's slipped, almost three decades later, now to 12%. That 4.8% difference, if you wanted to translate that into dollars would be $380,000,000 more recurring for the four-year, for higher education, public higher education in the state of Missouri. That's obviously a big number, and very meaningful when you think of the institutions trying to cope with that. Now let's look nationally. Since 2000 the average increase in state support for public, four-year institutions across the nation has been 2%. In Missouri, we can't talk about an average increase; we can talk about an average decrease which is basically 1% average decrease. I want you to see the context for the tuition decisions that we have made in Missouri. If we look at just 2006 fiscal year, so we're talking about '05-'06 last year, the national average for increases in state support for public institutions was 6%. I'm sorry, that's a year ago'05-'06 – in Missouri it was a 10th of a percent. For '07, the year we are now in, national average increase was 6.5%, for Missouri 2%. Now that's good news and we're very grateful to the Governor and the Legislature for making the decision to begin to restore the lost appropriations for higher education. These numbers are for public higher education in Missouri total. With those numbers reflecting the state support of higher education, I think it is remarkable, and you will see some other figures about this, that when we look at tuition increases in the state, the State of Missouri's public four-years has done exactly what the national average is in terms of tuition increases. Even though we have had to combat the fact that our state appropriation has not kept up with that national average. Another way to look at it is to look at last year's appropriations for higher education by states, and where does Missouri rank. There are two ways that this is typically evaluated: one is how much money goes to higher education per $100,000 in personal income. In Missouri, $4.66, that ranks us 46th out of 50 states and that ranks us last among our neighbors here in the Midwest. Another way to look at it is the appropriations per capita per the population of the state – that's $148.00 in Missouri. Again, that puts us dead last against our Midwest neighbors and 46th in the State. So either way among these two standard metrics for looking at it we clearly have work to do in Missouri to get us to the point where we can compete with Nebraska or Kansas or Iowa which as you can see in the case of Nebraska - spending twice as much per capita or per income on higher ed. And this is as much of an apples and apples comparison as we can get, it comes from a national database – Illinois State University's Grapevine Report. Now, I hope that the restoration of funding that we saw for this year continues and that we can begin to eat in to this lead, but it is a significant difference in terms of the level of state support that the institutions have to deal with.
Scholarship and financial aid – and I'll show you a figure on this in just a minute. Missouri State, as well as our colleagues in the other 12 public four-years, has a very strong commitment to scholarships. If you look at the four-year public institutions in Missouri, they provide almost $204,000,000 annually in financial aid and scholarships. The State of Missouri provides $26.8 million to all of those institutions – a 7.5 times difference. Lets just look at Missouri State and you can see we are doing pretty well on this ratio ourselves. We spent 21 million dollars on financial aid and scholarships in institutional, this is institutional, funds for our students compared to 3.7 million that came from the state. This year we increased financial aid, particularly on the need-based level by a total of $700,000 at Missouri State. Here's a way to look at it graphically and it shows that this is a steady difference, a steady and actually accelerating difference in which the blue bars represent the total institutional aid by the 13 Missouri public four-years and the maroon bar represents total student aid from Missouri. So the institutions, this one included, have a very, very strong commitment to scholarships. We are eager to work with the state in increasing the amount they provide, but we want people to recognize that when we talk about tuition and the pricing of a university education, this institution is making a substantial investment in keeping it affordable. And I suspect it comes as some surprise to you, at least to some of you, to know that we spend 21 million dollars of our own money for tuition scholarships and other forms of financial aid. There is a direct relationship between state support and increased tuition and yet I think Missouri and Missouri State have done good jobs trying to mitigate the impact of the falling state support. In the recent auditor's report on the institutions it was pointed out that the total tuition increase at Missouri's public universities in the last three years is the lowest of any of the big 12 states. For those of you who know the big 12 is an athletic conference, the University of Missouri is a participant in that, and it covers seven Midwestern states. We had the lowest increase in tuition as a state among those 12, excuse me, those seven contiguous states. Nationally, in '06 the average tuition increase at public universities was 7%; the average at Missouri's public institutions was 4.6%. Here's a graph that shows the relationship between increases and decreases in the state appropriation and increases and decreases in our tuition. The blue bar, or the blue line, is the state operating appropriations that come to all of the four-year institutions. And you can see it hadn't been pretty beginning in fiscal year '02 where we really bottomed out with a 15% decrease. And then you can see that it's been either small decreases or small increases. The orange line is what coping institutions have done on average with their increases in tuition. And you can see that these mat very closely on one another as far as us trying to offset the impact of the reduced state funding.
I want to go to enrollment real quickly. We have a lot of good stories to tell about enrollment at Missouri State. First, this is the West Plains campus. I know it's a little hard to read in the back. The bottom line is that for this year our applications continued to increase at the West Plains campus. It's been a very steady increase since 2000, but of concern to us is that it has been a steady decrease since 2002 in actual enrollment. We have lost enrollment at the West Plains campus. A number of reasons for this – one of them likely are that we charge a higher tuition at West Plains than I think almost any other community college. And there are very good reasons for that as well. Its not that West Plains is over-charging, they don't have the tax levy that other community colleges have from which they derive a great deal of their support. So, this past year with an enrollment, an initial enrollment here of 1,551 that's about a 2.8% decrease from the prior year. It is an area of concern for us and we're going to need to look at ways to fund the West Plains campus because it is clear that West Plains is a real on-ramp to access to advanced education for the citizens of that region. It needs to be successful, but continuing to increase tuition as a way to keep their budget where it needs to be is probably not a sustainable plan.
Now let's look at Springfield. This year, with the selection index increasing another point over the past year, primarily because of adjusting some for grade inflation, our enrollment of new freshmen is at 27,071. That's the highest enrollment of new freshmen we've had in many years, and I believe it may be the highest since selective admissions – or very, very close. Don you can tell me if it is an all time…second highest since selective admissions. But, I know this to be the case, it is the highest when, particularly in combination with average ACT of 23.8, so our increase across this period of time of more than 200 students has been accomplished at the same time we've been increasing the standards and you see those standards reflected in the fact that the academic preparation at least as measured by the ACT has also steadily increased for our incoming freshmen.
Admission summary for the fall semester you will see that, I believe, the preliminary for 2006 will be an all time record in terms of applications to Missouri State University. We're very pleased about that. You can see that our yield has been pretty steady at about half. In other words, of the students we admit about half enroll here. That hasn't changed a great deal. And you see that this depicts the nice recovery in enrollment this year, particularly after we had a little bit of a down last year.
Graduate students and fall semester enrollment. These are new students. You can see that the application has increased steadily in this decade. You can see that the admission has as well, and we had an increase in enrollment in graduate students. However, the yield is much less than it used to be and I suspect this may be due to the fact that we're competing for a larger range and pool of graduate students than we used to; one that isn't quite as regional as it was. And therefore, one in which financial support for graduate students becomes more and more a factor in determining where they will enroll. I think it points to the need for us to be very serious about are we providing adequate financial support for attracting and retaining really strong graduate students.
Fall semester minority enrollment. There are a number of nice stories here and I'm very pleased about the success that we have had. The total of 6.2% of university enrollment, the University's enrollment right now looks like on Springfield it's going to be about 19,500. That 6.2 I believe is probably the high point that we have had. What I'm confident is the high point is in terms of the number of African American students at the university. Our count as of today is 456. That represents a 10% increase over last year and is an all time high in terms of African American students. If you look at Hispanic students – the increase, I don't know if it is an all time high, I suspect that it is, we have 304 Hispanic students – that's a 12% increase. Overall increase in minority students at Missouri State is about 6.6% over last year and I think those are very, very good numbers, and I'm very pleased to see it given the public nature of our commitment to increasing diversity at the institution.
Retention rate. As you know, I've been concerned about this, we wrote a Friday Focus about it, so it is nice to be able to get the new data and see that we had a bit of a return to a better retention up over a percent over last year – 73.5%. But, for an institution accepting the quality of student we are, we should be looking at an 80% freshman retention rate. Now that might be staking the flag a little bit high for us, but I don't think so. And, particularly if you look at our benchmark institutions that we've selected, you will see that 80% is a number that they are achieving in some cases with students who would appear to be less academically prepared than the students we bring to Missouri State. So, we have to continue to work on this. There are a lot of dimensions to it, obviously. This is a complicated problem; it will require a sophisticated response. Provost McCarthy has put together a committee that's going to begin to look at this and this is one that I am calling the entire campus out on as far as lets look seriously at what we need to do to improve this retention rate for our undergraduates.
Our graduation rate – I'm pleased to see there is slow but steady progress. The four-year graduation rate has gone over 25% now, that's a nice increase across these five years. The five year graduation rate has come up by 5%; of course we don't have it yet for this most recent cohort. And the six year is hovering right around 50%. What's a reasonable goal here? We at least ought to be in the mid-50s and if you look at institutions like us that are really doing well on this score, they'd be at 60%. That's another stretch goal for us, but one that we ought to be proud enough of what we can do here and bold enough about what we say we'll accomplish that we go ahead and shoot for a 60% graduation rate.
Second goal is Incubating New Ideas. This is the research goal in the long range plan. It has three elements at least in the near term to it: the Futures Initiative, which is a designation of eleven areas that we're going to pay particular attention to with respect to some additional investments in faculty and in graduate students and perhaps in terms of environment; and Enhanced Research Infrastructure and Environment, which involves things like our policy on workload, the availability of space, the adequacy of our research equipment, and library resources - the tool that you need for research, as well as how do we support, how do we evaluate, how do we grow first class graduate programs which are essential to effective faculty scholarship and research; and then, taking right into the third point here Mature Graduate and Professional Programs. I know one of the academic priorities that the Provost will have is to begin to pay more attention to program evaluation for our graduate programs, making sure that we are achieving with them what we should be achieving, having high standards for them in terms of productivity and accomplishments. We're at a point where I think we've got to be careful about how many new programs we add, we have to be sure the ones we have are doing well. If we've got some that aren't doing well, we need to make careful decisions about do we invest, prop those up, get them healthier, or do we perhaps reallocate to areas where we think we have better opportunities and greater needs as far as the programs are concerned.
On research, I just want to hit a couple of highlights for you. The Mountain Grove campus task force report has been finished. As you know, that is the University's longest standing commitment to research is at Mountain Grove and we have implemented many of the recommendations from that task force. We have a new indirect cost policy - IDC's are the administrative costs that come from outside grants particularly from the federal government. We're distributing those in the case of non-centers. We're distributing those 25% to the department, 25% to the college, and 50% to the Vice President for Research. Because we don't have many IDC's this is an area where the University leaves money on the table. If we had more federal grants and contracts, we'd have more of this money, we'd be able to buy more equipment, we'd be able to renovate facilities, and we'd be able to use it to grow the research program. At a fairly low level of income on the IDC's, you're best to try to accumulate it in as small a number of pockets as you can so that you can leverage it to the maximum. So that's the policy that we will be having in terms of the distribution of the indirect costs with an idea that we want to leverage it as much as possible back into the research program. For centers, there is a new policy as well. They retain more of the IDC's since they have to live off of them in terms of their budget. But, their distribution will phase down over three years a little bit as well.
The Community and Social Issues Institute is an attempt for this University to begin to take the research mission and marry it to the public affairs mission so that we take advantage of the scholars that we have – the faculty and students interested in social issues and community problems - and we train their talent on how to best inform the community, the region, the state, about options and about evaluating potential solutions to those problems.
The Center for Grapevine Biotechnology is an outgrowth of the Mountain Grove campus task force, being organized under the department of Agriculture, is another special area for this institution's progress and distinction with the expertise that we have here in the (inaudible).
JVIC – three things I want to mention here to you: we continue to expand the partnerships here in CASE, the most recent one being St. John's which was approved as a new partner in CASE this past week by the Board; a new center for biomedical and life sciences, that will allow us to expand the research portfolio more in the biomedical and health research; and the JVIC, Inc. – JVIC, Inc. is a development yet to occur. I think we probably are at the point where we need to incorporate JVIC as a 501.c.3, a nonprofit and have a community board of directors to give us advice and guidance and support for the future enhancement of JVIC investments. Another reason to do this is that JVIC has now been named one of nine Missouri Innovation Centers by the State of Missouri. To be eligible for support from the State of Missouri they would like all of the Missouri Innovation Centers to be incorporated as nonprofits. If we were to do that, that would also make us eligible and we could use that as a vehicle for some other grants that currently…(inaudible)…apply for because it doesn't have a nonprofit status like JVIC, Inc. So, we presented this to the Board last Friday as a concept, we will be bringing it forward to the Board at the October meeting for approval.
Sponsored program activity – this is a busy table and a little confusing. I'll go over here to the far right column with the good news being that you've seen steady increase in the University's research awards, almost tripling from where it was back in fiscal year 2000, the 18.1 is a new record. As you look at this though, you'll be confused because there is a dramatic fall off in the total number of awards, and there is a fall off in the proposals submitted. I believe this is largely, there are two factors here to consider: one is there's a large artifact in that I think we're not counting, and that's what the note says down here, we're not counting as proposals or as awards some awards that we received this year that we used to count as distinct awards in the past. That will probably account for a major portion of the fall off. It doesn't account for all of it, and if the University is serious about increasing the research accomplishments and portfolio we're going to have to find ways to reverse the fact that our proposals have slipped in research from where they were. They need to increase. Now, it looks like we're converting a higher percentage of them, that's good. The direct appropriations that we get from the federal government account for a lot of this 18.1 and that's centered in CASE and JVIC, but we're going to have to do better with respect to encouraging research proposals to be written by our faculty and submitted in a peer reviewed fashion. This is just a graph, the red line shows the awards and the blue and green lines are kind of a visual despair here as you see them falling down, but again, I think that's largely artifactual in that we're defining them differently this year.
There is a great return on investment from the University being involved in research. 75% of recent economic development is attributed to scientific discoveries. Most of that's on University campus with patents, or licenses, or new discoveries. A million, over a million jobs since 2001 have been created directly as a result of university intellectual properties. There is a lot we can do for ourselves and for Springfield and the Ozarks in Missouri by doing well in this area.
Missouri State, through its research, and through its stature, is a tremendous contributor to the economy in Springfield and the Ozarks. We are part of a $900 million annual impact of higher ed. Almost a billion dollars in higher ed direct economic and spin-off economic impact on Springfield. This is a result of a recent study the Chamber of Commerce published. We're the eighth largest employer in this region with over 2,000 full-time employees. Our total budget, $215 million a year, and we have an annual payroll of $144 million a year. So we, just by our presence here, make a significant contribution to the economy. But we do more than that as an importer of talent, and these are some of the distinct operations that Missouri State does that I think help Springfield become a stronger magnet for outstanding talent.
The Fine Arts Academy – great students from all over Missouri come here in the creative and performing arts in the summer. Public Affairs Academy – same thing with a different focus in the summer. The Ozarks Environmental and Water Resource Institute where we get a very, very nice federal appropriation to study water issues in the Ozarks. Our China Campus continues to grow particularly in terms of the two-year program. And then a new initiative that I will be proposing for legislative support – the Missouri Innovation Academy – which is bringing high school students here from rural areas in their junior and senior years in high school to learn about how to commercialize scientific and technological ideas. So, we'll be marrying their interests and their expertise in science with an expertise in how do you commercialize those ideas that our business faculty and others can help them with and we'll put them at the elbows of the corporate scientists and the faculty who are working at JVIC for a more week immersion in the summer.
Imagining the Future – the third goal consists of four elements. The traits of an educated person, and we'll look at these very quickly but they're a refined well thought out set of qualities that this university has developed over the years, reflects, I think, a really solid understanding of what a liberal arts education involves. Our Public Affairs mission which continues to distinguish us in the state. Our new, I think, and growing commitment to international education. And then once again the Community and Social Issues Institute which I think is an attempt to take some research priorities and punch at the social and community problems that plaque us.
Here are the traits of the educated persons that we endorse at Missouri State: aesthetic taste, critical thinking, serious reading, being informed, well informed contributing citizens, and then the balance of an in-depth mastery with broad appreciation. I think we've got a great definition of what it means to be well educated and it reflects very well on the institution to have come to a concise, clear statement about what we believe a student should have as a result of being educated here.
We did a lot in Academic Affairs this year. The Provost model has been implemented, and along with that, although I recognize there is still things that Belinda will do as she shapes the office, but the concept is with us now and in place. We have a number of new leaders associated with that. Belinda of course is our Provost at Dell, Noose, and Morris as the new Dean of College of Arts and Letters and Tammy Onki is our new Dean of Natural and Applied Sciences, Art Speziak taking over as the Director of the Honors College, and Yung Wa Zon who has become our Director of International Programs and Affairs, and we got a really terrific report from the higher learning commission this year, reaffirming our ten year accreditation, the committee that worked on that under Bill Cheek's leadership did as good a job as any institution could ever expect and they have been called to a number of meetings to be examples of how you do and write a self-study report, so they have become somewhat of an emblem among higher learning commission folks about this is the way you do it well. Six significant reorganizations, these were all done for the purpose of efficiency, effectiveness, or enhancement, and you will recognize that we have redistributed the investments in University College; we formed international affairs because we knew it was too fragmented. School of agriculture has become a department of agriculture with some savings associated with that. Ozark's Study Institute, a little different organization there within the College of Arts and Letters, the assistant for public affairs has been absorbed into the Provost office and Belinda is seeking to drive the mission associated with that office more and more into the colleges and departments, and then we are kind of in the midst of looking how to organize continuing education the best and extended campus the best bringing it again closer to the colleges.
Fourth goal: Making Missouri's future. There are six themes we will talk about here and then the status of new degree programs. The six themes we, you will recognize these, there are number of academic programs that represent each of these very well at the institution. Business and economic development, we do want to be attentive to work force needs in the region and in Missouri and that will be a factor as we consider new degree programs. The creative arts, we have wonderful facilities here, it is a campus that I think has a very well deserved reputation for having outstanding programs in the performing and creative arts. Its part of what it means to be educated and to live a cultivated life is to have a greater appreciation for the arts. We want to stretch our students' abilities to enjoy the arts and so that remains an important theme for the institution.
Health. There is a 4.5 billion dollar industry in health in the Springfield region. By far the biggest industry that we have. This institution must continue to look for ways to partner with that element of the economy here that really significant component of it and make sure that workforce needs are addressed there. Professional education. We want to sustain our legacy in the preparation of teachers and in very good contributions to the high quality schools in Missouri. Science and the environment. We are developing expertise in material science and biomedical and life sciences in the environment, in energy and in some other areas where if you want to be in an institution in the 21st century that students take seriously when they think about what do I want to be you are going to have to be an institution that does well in science. Obviously, our investment with the University of Missouri in Raleigh in an engineering program was done with that in mind at least in part. And then the human dimension which is a new theme in the plan, one which I know you worked on over a few years and we are very glad that it's there, but it deals with the fact that this institution will want its students and its faculty to be grappling with ultimate concerns, with the values and with the cultural traditions that are very important as people reflect on what it means to be human and as we begin to prepare them for mindful lives.
New academic programs. Three have been approved this year by CBHE and five that are in progress that we feel very good about. There are six new graduate certificates that have been approved, and I think as you look at these and have time to look at them more thoroughly, you will see they spread across the six themes. There is a program or certificate there for each one of the themes. They are also distributed nicely between graduate and undergraduate programs. New accelerated masters in religious studies and a new minors in Chinese and recreational leisure studies. New partnerships this year: Evangel with an accelerated masters, New Mexico Tech with our work in our first responder training that's more of a research and non-credit emphasis and then the cooperative engineering program with the University of Missouri at Raleigh. We need to be a partnered institution to be able to do everything we want to do. We are not going to be able to start new programs in every single area that would be vital to us just on our own. We do need to develop the process of rigorous evaluation to make sure the programs are high quality both in our undergraduate and in our graduate programs and we want to make sure that we are putting our resources into programs that have the capability and the aspiration to be highly, highly successful. And then if we add programs, whether at the undergraduate, graduate, or professional level, we want them to be in high need areas, ones that we are sure there's going to be a market. I think increasing academic programs, additional academic programs, will be market driven and that's an area that we will be and asking Belinda to be particularly specialized to think about new programs that we might want to bring forward. But we are probably not entering a period of rapid program addition as we are consolidation and strengthening of what we have and then being real strategic with what we might have.
West Plains had a nice year in terms of their academic programs, a provisional accreditation of their respiratory therapy program, new degree programs in fire science, child and family development and computer graphics. West Plains now has an endowed honors program thanks to Bill and Virginia Darr. A wonderful addition particularly for us on the Springfield campus as we think about the feeding of students from them to us and then doing a nice job of expanding their donor group for private support of West Plains.
Finally, our last goal is modeling ethical and effective behavior; four things I want to talk here. The institutions commitment to diversity, trying to be as open and transparent in our operations and decisions as we can. What sort of investments should we make in facilities and infrastructures and support? And then finally how are we going to make sure we have modern and functional information systems. Diversity efforts as you know we opened an office in St. Louis for recruiting. We are going to look at doing that in Kansas City. Those are two metropolitan areas that we get over 5,000 of our students from and they are more diverse than most any other area in Missouri, so we are going to continue to work hard there. The president's commission on diversity gave us a lot of good recommendations about how to make this a campus that looks more like the world and makes it a campus where all kinds of talented people, regardless of their religion or of their country or of their race, or of any other kinds of individual characteristics will find it a good place to be educated. So, we are going to keep the president's commission on diversity in place, keep them working, evaluating both and suggesting both close-end goals and some longer term objectives. And then Missouri State ought to be an institution that is a leader and sets an example in diversity. We can do that in two or three areas in addition to just things of the visible characteristics of race, ethnicity and gender and do that by being an institution that is committed to international education both in terms of our students going abroad to study as well as us having students from across the world come here to study. We can do it by making sure that there is free and open expression and competition of ideas, even ideas that some of us might think are goofy. Goofy ideas deserved to at least be expressed on a campus. Now, they may be evaluated and ultimately rejected in the course of good debate, but this is a place that can allow that and should allow that to happen. And then finally we do want to be known as an institution that is accepting and that is inclusive rather than exclusive of everybody who is educated here and everybody who works here. Those are really fairly simple goals as far as diversity is concerned. I think they are both necessary goals and I think they are good goals and I hope that the university continues to stay committed to those.
Physical affairs in budget trying as you know, this has been a big change putting the executive budget committee in place. We've done two 1% reallocations now, the third one we'll do this year. My proposal is that we'll take half that 1% and let the cost center use it for their priorities. We'll take the other half of that 1% and use it for agreed upon institutional priorities. Cost centers have now been established in the budget autonomy and responsibility moved to them. They now have new carried-forward policies as far as their money is concerned and their salary savings. We have instituted a about a three month process of budget hearings. As we get to a package of what I am calling a "decision package". The new money that we'll put up for initiatives for new programs or for special needs that the institution addresses. We do want to try to increase the transparency even more than we did this last year in how we make these budgeting decisions. Bottom line that everyone should be interested in; we had at the end of this year, 5 million dollars that we put into one time needs and we had a 5.7 million dollar reserve after we did that, so the financial health of the institution right now is quite good.
Human resources. We are going to try hard to get performance based compensation system up and clear and understood as well as the performance evaluation ingredients that go along with that. We've streamlined the person election form so that now hopefully we can people hired and appointed within the same quarter at least of the year in which they apply. We have set aside 400,000 dollars for funding the wellness program; 200,000 dollars this year, 200,000 dollars next year and that money came out of savings that we were able to achieve in the university's healthcare funding. And then last year we did a 3% salary pool plus the 1% equity in mid-year. I would like to do at least as well this year. Now, that is not a stake in the ground yet but the aspiration would be to get to a percentage for the salary pool of that magnitude.
Handbook revisions. I would like to compliment the handbook revision committee for the good work, hard work they have done. I know it is now in front of the senate for discussion and it will get input on the handbook revision. The board is anxious as I think we all are to bring that to a successful conclusion by the December meeting of the board of governors. We have reorganized university advancement in communications to promote development of alumni relations, a new format for Missouri State magazine. I hope you like it and am able to look at it and learn some things from it. Priority focus will continue as a way I try to communicate with the campus. If there is a better way I would like to hear it and we would consider it, but I think this works as a focused way to discuss some topics.
Quarterly meetings with the Springfield News-Leader. We meet with the editorial board every three months to have a pretty wide open discussion about things that either they have questions about or things that are important to us that we want them to know about and we will continue with that practice. We achieved an all-time record this past year for giving and part of that, there were a lot of new endowments to new chairs. Five new professorships, two that were just funded a couple of weeks ago by Jim and Laura Morris and then ten new endowed scholarships, two of which are fairly recent. All together, if you take the endowments that we created at the end of last September and some of the new ones that have come in over the past few weeks; since last July there have been 5 million dollars in new academic endowments, either for chairs, professorships, or scholarships. And then to ensure that we have adequate funding for the budget for JQH Arena. Mr. Hammons came through with an additional 5 million on his commitment to the arena. I wanted you to see the total gift dollars for the institution. You can see that we have more than doubled in the past six years, the annual giving to the institution. This 11.8 year, is a wonderful increase over the 9 million, which was almost the high mark if we go back to '03, '04 that was the high point. This is a little hard to see, but this is an important thing to recognize because a lot of times I get either the question or the accusation about how much money we raise for athletics as opposed to anything else. So, I ask for it to be broken down. A year in '04-'05, the university raised 9 million dollars, 24% of it went to academic colleges, 27% of it went to athletics. Last year, we raised almost 12 million dollars. The support for the colleges almost doubled from 2.1 to 4 million dollars. And so that increase from 24% to 34%, making academics clearly the number one category of private support within the institution. Athletics increased from 2.4 to 2.7 but decreased, as you would imagine it would given the overall increase in private giving, decrease from 27% to 23% of the total. You can look at this online; the entire report will be online and available on the web for you to study, but I think that you will see that the increase in giving that occurred this past year has gone almost entirely to the academic colleges, to some facility improvements where we increase in a total of about 5% the investments in our infrastructure.
Now, this brings us, of course to infrastructure and to the annual Hanson Elliot Tribute, so we wanted a picture of an old structure that needed a face lift as a symbol for what the institution would do with the respect to some of its facilities. Hanson, are you still here? Yes. Good. Come back next year. We'll have another one for you. Quick review of facilities and campus wide projects. We are going to go ahead with a new administrative computing system. We've got it down to a payment of 1.5 toward the 6 million dollar bill that that will require. The boiler replacement so that y'all can have air conditioned offices. We have a million and half payment down payment on about three million that that will require. Is that right Greg? Yeah. Freeup. We are waiting on Freeup, obviously, in terms of renovations and continue to work hard in support of the Lewis and Clark initiative that would provide the funding for renovations of Siceluff, King Street Annex, Temple, and Hammons Student Center on this campus and Gumwood, Hoshoover, and Shepherd at Mtn. Grove and West Plains. JQ Arena will break ground, right now it is scheduled for December 21st. JVic construction is proceeding on a nice schedule. We are anticipating it being open in April, the first phase. There have some wonderful enhancements to the DarAg Center, largely through federal appropriations and private gifts, and we have developed a new capitals priority list for next year. Freeup, phase one, if we for some reason don't get the money on the MOHELA initiative, and Ozark public health and life sciences center would be a new science building for the campus. That would be the major new capital project that the university is proposing, and then broadway, all for allied help at West Plains. The University Rec Center will come forward for student referendum in October.
Intercollegiate athletics. We reorganized the reporting relationship to the president's office. I think you know about that. We did, last year, determine what the affordable scope would be, so that we could have improved fiscal stability in the athletics program that resulted in the very, very difficult decision of dropping five sports. We have some investments where we knew either for safety or just for functional purposes, we needed to, so again with a private gift, new term was installed at Plaster field. We have made very good progress toward title nine proportionality. These are some new numbers. I don't think they have ever been released to the campus before. We said we would comply with title nine, the old fashioned way, which was prong one where the proportion of female athletes would equal the proportion of female students at the university. This is the first time the university, I believe, had said prong one is the way we will go. And we will do that as we reduce the scope of the athletic program. If we look at the fall '06 participation figures; male participation, we have 191 students in intercollegiate athletic teams, representing 45% of the athletes and females; we have 234 students representing 55% of our athletes. I think if you look at the male and female ratio of enrollment at Missouri State, you will see that these get right on top, these athletic participation numbers sit right on top of where we are in terms of overall enrollment by gender. And then, again to remind you we reduced the transfer to athletics last year by a quarter of a million dollars. That's recurring money and that is directly the result of downsizing in the number of programs.
The public score card. We want to talk about our graduation, our retention, our faculty achievement, our annual giving, our diversity, our community impact, and there will be a measure for every one of those, in some cases multiple measures. We will record them every year. We will put them on the web. We are either going to look better at the end of the year or we are going to look worse. That will either allow us to brag in the former case, or resolve us to do better in the latter case. But we will make our results public for everyone to see on 25 measures that we decide are important enough to go ahead and share with everyone. This is what Missouri State has accomplished within the past year. The eleven benchmarks we have selected will be used to gage our progress on goals compared to other institutions, allow us to look at best practices that they have and absorb them into this culture when we discover them, and it will also allow us to look at what do we achieve with the resources we have in comparison to other institutions, public ones, and what they do with the resources they have. Which brings me to an interesting slide and almost the end, and then I will take your questions. Sorry you can't see this very well, but what this does is compare the number of students educated in public universities and private universities in Missouri and what it costs to do it. And what I would like to point out is on the left side here we have total expenditures for the private institutions, that's the maroon bar and total expenditures for the public institutions, that's the green bar. And this includes hospitals and auxiliaries and everything that would be in a university's budget. Our private colleagues in Missouri educate 83,590 full time students. We educate 101,566. What does it cost at a private institution to educate one of those students on average? 28,455 dollars. What does it cost here, at the public? 19,595 dollars. About a 9,000 dollar per head difference when you look at including all the expenditures. And, we are doing about 20,000 more students. Well, let's take the hospitals and auxiliaries out since one may say those aren't comparable between private and public. Let's take them out and now we'll look at, again we are educating the same number of students; 83, 590 at the privates and the 101,566 at the publics. Now the cost. I'm sorry; I just flipped this the wrong way. This is with the hospitals out; this is with the hospitals and auxiliaries in. Here you see it is 33,900 at the privates versus 27,500 at the publics. About a six thousand dollar difference per student when you look at it that way. So, efficiency and effectiveness. I think we have a story to tell. It's not just Missouri State's story, it's all the public higher education story that Missouri could tell. Look at this a little more and you'll begin to see, I think, the magnitude of difference and why support of public education is so important for Missouri's progress.
A dozen priorities to implement the plan, and I will go through these real quickly. Hopefully they don't need a whole lot of elaboration. We want to get this compensation and evaluation system up and going. There will be bugs in it. We need to get the bugs out, and we need to get people to see that we will do it fairly and openly and in the long run it will move compensation overall and in terms of the correct philosophy of compensation move this institution forward. We do want to establish a greater statewide and national presence. We are working real hard to do that, and that will be a priority with my own personal time. We want to promote the success of a new generation of academic leaders and a new structure that we have academically. We want to advance our state and federal agenda, our cost to continue, the equity funding, that 6 million dollars, so that we get funded on a per student basis equal to our regional colleagues. The statewide engineering program with Raleigh and the Missouri Innovation Academy. Federally, we are going to keep working at the appropriations that are vital to us in JVic, water resources and a number of research projects that we have been building here at the institution. Prepare a new comprehensive fund raising campaign. I would like by the end of the academic year to have the structure and dollar figure in mind for a new comprehensive capital campaign for Missouri State. It would be the first one for Missouri State. We are in a good position to do it. And I think we have a very, very aggressive five year number. Continue the capital and infrastructure initiatives and make some progress on those, promote our diversity efforts, advance the academic affairs priorities, and I know Belinda will have an opportunity to talk more about what those are in terms of program development and evaluation, faculty hiring, faculty mentoring, and faculty development. Continue to improve the budget process, so that people understand how we get to the investments that we make, not that you will necessarily always agree with them, but that it will be clear why and what we invested. Increase the research achievements, proposals, proposals, and proposals. That is where that starts. Promote a successful intercollegiate athletics program and I have given my definition of what that is, but perhaps there will be a question about it and I can elaborate. And then continue to facilitate a statewide board of governors. That has a number of elements in it, including where we have our meetings, how we run our meetings-we are going to a consent agenda so we can free up some time at the meetings to be sure we present important policies and important questions to the board, and that we have time to highlight the achievements of individual faculty and academic programs at the board meeting. We spend 3 hours at board meetings and sometimes not every minute is riveting in terms of the experience. We can make it more informative for our governors, more useful to the public, and actually more useful to ourselves to begin to look at how we organize those meetings and the content we put into them, so we will continue to work with the board on that and may even entertain a little bit of a committee structure so that we can have committee meetings and then have reports come out of those committees to the board for the full boards' consideration. Okay, I appreciate you coming and your attention. I look forward to a new year with you.