Priorities for Nurse Training Act Legislation: A National Survey of Nursing Deans

Abstract

1984 represents a pivotal year for nursing and nursing education in part as a result of future legislation of the Nurse Training Act (NTA). In the face of lost federal funds secondary to the recession, and/or the current administration's attitude toward funding for higher education as well as a decreasing number of college‐age students, nursing must be prepared to launch a united effort to recapture lost funds and/or prevent future losses. This must be a deliberate, pragmatic, and well‐organized effort. It must be goal‐oriented, not merely reactive. To assess how nursing deans and/or chairpersons are planning to confront the financial and demographic realities of the1980s and 1990s a national survey was conducted among 227 nursing education administrators. These administrators responded to a four‐page questionnaire providing quantitative and qualitative data. Areas covered in the questionnaire included previous use of NTA funds, priorities for future nurse training legislation and funding, enrollment trends of undergraduate and graduate nursing students and lastly, master plans and future goals designed to cope with reduced federal funding. Categories that were most important in the establishment, maintenance, or expansion of their programs were capitation, graduate and undergraduate student assistance, and special projects. The respondents indicated that future priorities for nurse training funding would include direct student assistance, piogram and institutional support, and individual needs of specific schools and/or regions. The respondents claimed that over the last five years 30% of schools had experienced a decline in enrollment of undergraduates, and 27% had experienced a decline in graduate enrollment. Lost federal funds contributed to 74 % of the undergraduate decline and 74% of the graduate decline. Future goals and master plans designed to cope with reduced federal funding have been characterized as developmental programatic approaches and/or a combined developmental/programatic approach. However, a startling 16% of the total respondents did not indicate future plans or goals. This survey further indicated that the priorities of those surveyed have changed from program concerns to student concerns and that their assessed needs are dramatically different from those of the Reagan administration. Of the deans and/ or chairpersons surveyed, 74% indicated that they were generating creative plans to cope with lost federal funds.

Nursing for the Future, from the Past: Two Reports on Nursing from the Institute of Medicine

“…In 1970, there were approximately 250 nurse practitioners, and by 1980, more than 18,000 ( School of Health Related Professions, State University of Buffalo, 1983 ). This could have, of course, been the result of a prior growth trend, but funding did play a role, as can be seen in the demise of the certificate programs over the decade ( Crosby et al, 1983 ;Miller, 1985 ).…”