Student Green Fund Implementation in U.S. Colleges and Universities from 1973-2010

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% �𝑜𝑟
institutions identified in Table 1; and 80% �𝑜𝑟
64
64
� of the accredited public
1762
� 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%
�𝑜𝑟
16
� of accredited private not-for-profit institutions; and 20% �𝑜𝑟
1716
16
� 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
Boulder’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 student’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. UNLV’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
Boulder’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 Boulder’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. Interviewees’ 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
university’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 university’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 “student
advocates to institutional bureaucrats (Anonymous Director).” 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 government’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
government’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 committee’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 group’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 master’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 College’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 College’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 College’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 EMC’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 students’ 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 don’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 college’s greenhouse gas inventory and campus’ sustainability
efforts. They present these reports to the EMC, which serves as their main metric on t he
institution’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 Boulder’s student green fee programs and Yale
University’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 college’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 committee’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 fund’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 applicant’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 fund’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 committee’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 fund’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 Boulder’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
institution’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 ale’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.
—. "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+ ¹
$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
¹ 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 ¹
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
?
?
¹ 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 institution’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: [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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: [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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: [email protected]. 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 [email protected].
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: [email protected]
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 Bintliff’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®)
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