Evaluating Campus Green Funds: Student Review of Campus Impacts Karen Blaney, University of Texas at Austin Micah Kenfield, University of Illinois

Overview  Survey of Peer Institutions  Campus Demographics and Fund Sizes  Funding Application Process  Post-Funding Monitoring and Evaluation  UT Austin MPA Audit  Creation of Project KPI's  Conclusions on strength/value of audit  Pros/Cons of student evaluation + next steps  University of Illinois  Funding Process  Existing Evaluation Process  Independent Study Course – Reviewing Projects  Feedback and Questions

Survey of Campuses  Conducted an assessment of current monitoring and evaluation practices for student- administered green funds at AASHE member institutions (66 schools invited; 32 participated)  Of the 32 that participated, 29 stated that they had an annual sustainability fund allocated by students, and 23 charged an annual fee to students to finance the fund.  Schools ranged in size and public/private status, as follows: 1, ,999 5, ,999 10, ,999 15, ,999 25, ,999 More than 35,000Grand Total Private Four-Year University4 1 5 Public Four-Year University Public Two-Year University 1 1 Grand Total

Fund Sizes for Sample Group

Annual Student Fees for Sample Group

Annual Project Funding Requests

Application Processes - Select Requirements  Simple cost analyses (Scope / Cost / Savings / Payback Period)  A combination of social, environmental, and economic metrics including  Reduction of Ecological Footprint / GHG impact  Increased Student Engagement  Education and Outreach  Longevity and Feasibility  External support and fundraising  A Measurement and Reporting Plan (How to achieve impact(s) and how to measure and report those impact(s) either quantitatively or qualitatively)  Alignment with STARS criteria and the institutional Climate Action Plan  “There are no requirements for measuring and reporting as our team checks in with project leaders frequently”

Post-Funding Tracking Efforts  Not every school has robust tracking for projects after funding:  86% of respondents list some sort of effort to track projects  68% get reports on short-term project impacts after completion  50% use reports from projects to make decisions about future projects to fund  43% showcase the impact the committee's work has on overall campus sustainability through annual reports.  Even the schools that do track project progress typically only do so through the project’s implementation.  Generally speaking, measurement of ongoing impacts after the project is ‘completed’ simply does not occur.  The University of Texas and the University of Illinois are attempting to change that.

MPA Audit of Program (UT Austin)  Three teams of Masters in Professional Accounting students in 2014 and 2015  Faculty added Office of Sustainability/Green Fee to the potential project list  Students were not exposed to Green Fee prior to class project  Typical assignment is more of a business audit; this project required creative approaches

Creation of Project KPI's  The first group reviewed the Committee policies and procedures  The second and third group created & used Key Performance Indicators to evaluate projects  Key Performance Indicators:  Level of Grantee Involvement  Student Awareness  Timeline (adherence)  Budget (accuracy/adherence)  Physical Benefit to Campus  Student Employment  Feasibility of Applying Research  Academic Achievement  Expansion Beyond UT-Austin  Public Awareness  Environmental Impact  Student Involvement

Conclusions on strength/value of audit  Analytic material produced  The students had an interesting and challenging class experience  Program operating according to founding documentation  The Key Performance Indicators are valid and useful  Consistent critiques

Pros/Cons of student evaluation + next steps  Measures of success for abstract concepts are very difficult.  The dataset is small.  We have improved the exit reporting form and an exit interview might be even better.  The program could benefit from a peer review or audit from a similar university.  It also might be profitable to do a program comparison.

University of Illinois – Funding Application and Reporting Process  All projects required to submit a detailed application that details what the project hopes to accomplish, how it will do so, and what specific outcomes can be expected  Post-funding, projects submit regular semesterly reports on progress  A few months after project completion, they are also required to submit a final report referencing the goals in their initial application.  This often doesn’t really show if the long-term goals of the project were achieved – for example, you can’t assess effectiveness of a solar project based off two months of summer production

University of Illinois – Independent Study Project Evaluation  One faculty advisor for SSC created an independent study course to evaluate ways we could work on longer-term monitoring and evaluation. His class was responsible for several projects, designed to be shared with the Committee:  Short presentations on basic skills for analyzing SSC funding applications  Evaluations of Completed SSC-Funded Projects  Recommendations for Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures for Pending SSC-Funded Projects

Evaluation of Completed SSC-Funded Projects  Projects selected for this assignment were completed and had submitted reports 1-2 years before the class.  The goal was to follow up from the final reports to see if the projects’ goals had continued to be met or if they ultimately fell short.  Successes:  Students gained good information about monitoring and evaluation – and we got some good data  We’d never really followed up with applicants before, and it provided a good template for our continuing efforts.  Challenges  Having applicants work with the students after they’d gotten the ‘carrot’ of funding  Innovative nature of projects we fund can also lead to less successful projects being ‘shy’  Some applicants weren’t really collecting especially good / useful data on their projects, which impacted what the students were able to glean.

Recommendations for Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures for Pending SSC-Funded Projects  In order to help future SSC-funded project avoid some of the same challenges past ones had, students in the class also developed monitoring and evaluation plans for projects we’d funded the previous semester, before they began the implementation phase of their projects.  Successes:  The goals the students developed have given SSC more of an idea what to expect from projects and given the applicants more specific goals.  The process indirectly also led to SSC overhauling its internal reporting system to make the semesterly and final reports clearer and more consistent.  Challenges  Administrators are busy – some students found it hard to find a mutually agreeable time to meet with the project leads  We don’t know how effective the course’s plans are yet – we still have a year or two before we’ll start to see the effect in action

Feedback and Questions  Why audit Green Funds?  Who should we engage to dive deeper into intangible benefits for campus and participants?  What are your experiences setting up green funds and projects for success? Any other experiences evaluating/auditing funds and projects?  Has anyone been required to audit their fund?

Contact Information Karen Blaney Assistant Manager, Office of Sustainability The University of Texas at Austin Micah Kenfield Student Sustainability Committee Coordinator University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign