Penn State president wants to close 7 campuses. Internal records explain why.

UPDATE: A few hours after this story was published, Penn State publicly shared the full recommendation report regarding the campus closures. “I am truly sorry that our community is learning of the recommendation through media coverage, rather than hearing about it with additional context directly from me or the board,” President Neeli Bendapudi said in a news release.

ORIGINAL STORY: Penn State President Neeli Bendapudi has asked university trustees to approve closing seven of its commonwealth campuses because the current statewide model “subsidizes decline,” according to internal records obtained by Spotlight PA.

“Fulfilling our land-grant mission does not require a four-year campus in every corner of Pennsylvania,” the president wrote. Instead, under the proposal, online classes could replace some in-person offerings and a leaner university with fewer locations could invest in the parts of Pennsylvania where Penn State believes it can still succeed.

Bendapudi has proposed closing Penn State’s DuBois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre, and York campuses. More than 500 employees and thousands of students would be affected by the move.

“These are not just campuses; they are homes, launching pads, and sources of deep pride. And yet … if we delay action, the pressures we face—demographic, financial, competitive—will continue to mount. In time, those forces will make decisions for us, not with the care, intention, or commitment to students and communities that this process allows,” Bendapudi wrote to trustees.

On Monday, the Philadelphia Inquirer first reported the list of seven campuses Bendapudi wanted to close. In response, board chair David Kleppinger said in a statement, “I find it deeply frustrating that someone with early access to this recommendation decided to share it with the media with absolutely no regard for how this information would impact members of our campus communities. Our students, faculty and staff deserve better.”

But the Penn State Board of Trustees still needs to approve the plan, a vote that’s grown more contentious. Questions, as well as outright disapproval, from some trustees delayed a scheduled vote this week, according to people with knowledge of the board’s operations.

Trustees will meet privately Thursday to continue discussing the proposal.

Spotlight PA obtained the materials trustees are reviewing, which total almost 250 pages. The full text of the university’s recommendation and related materials offer the most detailed look to date at Penn State’s justification for potentially shuttering locations, upending the lives of thousands of employees and students, and markedly changing the educational landscape of Pennsylvania.

The records provide a campus-by-campus rationale for closing, offer insights into how trustees feel about the decision, and reveal that Penn State officials anticipate minimal political and funding fallout from the move.

Penn State’s Office of Strategic Communication told Spotlight PA Tuesday afternoon that “the University will not be able to make the deadline, but we will share a statement with you eventually, understanding we may not make publication.”

In the documents, Penn State claims that previous university administrations failed to act. Closing campuses is presented to trustees as the only viable option: “We now have an opportunity to address what’s long been understood.” The documents note that enrollments at Penn State’s smallest 12 campuses continued declining despite more than $1 billion in investments between 2010 and 2024, including $105 million under Bendapudi. Likewise, they highlight that new academic programs, digital advertising, tuition discounts, and increased support for out-of-state and international students largely failed to boost enrollments.

“The plan to close campuses was not the initial intent of this administration; rather, it was a discovered reality,” the documents say.

Under the proposal, the new Penn State will be regionalized to incentivize larger classes and on-campus living instead of commuting. Locations that generate revenue or are near self-sustaining, those with the largest enrollments, and those in areas with growing populations will remain.

Historical enrollment trends and opportunities for future growth were key factors in the university’s recommendation. Other criteria given significant weight were nearby housing availability and the ability to duplicate academic offerings at a nearby campus or online.

The records include a multi-paragraph rationale for closing each of the seven campuses, which say in part:

• For DuBois, the main reason is “sustained and substantial enrollment decline,” the report reads. The population in the surrounding area — Clearfield, Elk, and Jefferson Counties — is aging and declining. Other organizations, like the Triangle Tech vocational school, are leaving the region too, the university argued.

• At Fayette, successful programs at other campuses are not driving enrollments there. The campus is “underutilized,” and there is “limited demand for in-person education in this location.” While the local college-age population is expected to grow, Penn State faces regional competition with PennWest California and Waynesburg University.

• Penn State recommends closing Mont Alto due to enrollment and demographic challenges. “The limited pool of prospective students constrains the campus’ ability to rebuild enrollment organically, even with aggressive outreach or new program development.” Declining use of campus housing is also driving up per-student costs.

• New Kensington has “struggled to maintain relevance and scale in an increasingly competitive higher education environment” around Pittsburgh, the report reads. The campus’ offerings mirror other locations and nearby Penn State Beaver will maintain Penn State’s presence in the area.

• For Shenango, declining populations and economic challenges in the surrounding region “fundamentally limit the potential for future enrollment stabilization.” Without more campus housing, Penn State could not bring more students to the campus, either.

• Wilkes-Barre was recommended for closure because its campus is small and has limited housing, which makes it less appealing than nearby locations like Scranton and Hazleton. “There is no compelling academic niche or distinctive program portfolio at Penn State Wilkes-Barre that cannot be replicated or consolidated” at another campus or online.

• Penn State York lacks the campus housing to attract non-commuter students. The nearby Harrisburg location has such housing and offers more diverse programming.

Five other locations — Beaver, Greater Allegheny, Hazleton, Schuylkill, and Scranton — were considered but not recommended for closure.

The university estimates closing the seven campuses would save around $50 million a year, along with clearing around $200 million in needed maintenance at the properties.

The records do not offer an estimate of what it will cost to implement the plan.

Julio Palma, a Penn State Fayette professor, told Spotlight PA that shutting down a location is not innovation. Penn State is abandoning communities, like coal companies have done throughout Appalachia, he said.

“This is a public university that receives funding from the state, it receives funding from taxpayers,” Palma said. “Those taxpayers are spread in every corner of the state. They are in Fayette. And while the taxpayers are supporting Penn State across the state, Penn State is closing doors, closing opportunities.”

Penn State estimates that 520 full-time employees will be affected by the closures. Non-tenure-line faculty and staff could be rehired and could be given priority consideration for jobs at remaining campuses and University Park.

“The largest expense will likely be severance costs for employees who are no longer employed by Penn State,” the recommendation says. No cost estimate is provided in the records, though the university expects to reduce such workforce expenses through attrition, retirements, and voluntary separations.

More than 3,100 students were enrolled in the seven campuses in fall 2024, representing 3.6% of Penn State’s systemwide enrollment, according to university data. Other campuses could absorb these students without needing to hire additional staff, the university estimates.

Affected students could receive additional financial aid, adjusted costs when attending another campus, or even gas cards, according to the proposal. These students will be offered “navigation coaches” who will help students clarify their goals, stay motivated, and find experts to answer their questions.

Students at these campuses are not necessarily going to travel a greater distance to enroll at another campus, or they may not have the means, Andrea Adolph, a Penn State New Kensington professor, told Spotlight PA. The administration and trustees do not understand this reality, she said: “This is going to be an incredible blow to opportunities for students who can’t pick up and move somewhere else.”

Penn State, in its recommendation, argues that fewer campuses will benefit students. “Treating all campuses the same would have meant continued subsidies to locations with little growth potential—ultimately disadvantaging students elsewhere across the commonwealth. With this recommendation, the University can focus on targeted investments where it can do the greatest good, particularly for first-generation, Pell-eligible, and underserved students.”

Penn State will not accept new student applications for closed campuses after fall 2025.

Trustees were expected to vote on Bendapudi’s proposal on Thursday but the volume of questions from board members, as well as consternation from some, have delayed the move.

Thursday’s meeting will be a private executive session. The board also gathered Friday morning in private at University Park, during which they discussed the closure plan, according to a public statement by board Chair Kleppinger and people with knowledge of trustee discussions.

In private, Kleppinger has told trustees the board should unanimously support Bendapudi’s proposal and that dissent could hurt her legacy, according to multiple sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private board dynamics.

Kleppinger, in a statement to Spotlight PA, refuted that characterization and said: “Penn State’s board is specifically structured to include trustees from varying backgrounds and experiences to bring diverse viewpoints and opinions to University oversight matters, and there is absolutely room for every trustee to share their perspectives. The board asked President Bendapudi two years ago to look into the structure and health of the University’s Commonwealth Campus ecosystem. Significant work, over eighteen months has gone into the recommendation and my ask to the board is that we fully consider her recommendation and make a decision that is the best interest of the continued success of Penn State.”

Last month, trustees Jay Paterno and Ted Brown, and later Nicholas Rowland, publicly questioned the administration’s approach to the decision and stated reasons in several op-eds in StateCollege.com. “Our campuses are not line items to cut or assets to liquidate; they are integral parts of the whole,” Rowland wrote.

But several factors work in Bendapudi’s favor. The size of Penn State’s board — 36 voting members — requires a large number of trustees to vote against the measure to stop it. Also, trustees will take one vote on the proposal, not consider closures on a campus-by-campus basis. Finally, voting data shows that trustees are often loath to vote against an administration’s proposal.

A previous Spotlight PA analysis of trustee votes between 2019 and 2024 found that they passed nearly 85% of measures without a single oppositional vote. The board voted down just four of the 328 measures it considered during this period, three of which were motions a trustee proposed mid-meeting. The other, in July, was an option for how trustees should be elected to the board.

According to the board documents, trustees have questioned how the administration will implement the plan, the estimated costs and savings, and how Penn State could divest from the associated real estate. The records provide some insight into how Penn State’s governing body is thinking about the proposal given that, to date, the board has not held public discussions on the topic.

The board previously planned a virtual-only meeting this week to vote on the plan, an act that legal experts previously told Spotlight PA could run afoul of Pennsylvania’s open meetings law. Someone could challenge the meeting in court, and if they were successful, a judge could potentially overturn the trustees’ votes, the lawyers told Spotlight PA. (Penn State did not respond to requests for comment at the time.)

This spring, some members of the university community, including employees, called on Bendapudi to reconsider closing campuses. They felt the president’s reasons for weighing closures— at first financial and later about the student experience — lacked clarity and transparency.

The vast majority of the more than 500 public comments Penn State received — from community members to alumni to lawmakers — asked the university to keep all locations open. Trustees received brief summaries of these comments. The recommendation documents note that some people said they supported closures but felt pressured to publicly say otherwise, though the report did not include further information about these claims.

Opponents of campus closures did not offer any “fully developed or funded proposals,” the board’s documents say. Likewise, Bendapudi and her chief of staff, Michael Wade Smith, talked to Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and state lawmakers, and “there have been no offers of financial support in these conversations,” the document reads.

Shapiro’s office did not return a request for comment for this story.

According to the internal documents, Penn State does not anticipate political or reputational fallout from the decision, nor does it think the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives each year in taxpayer funds, now under consideration, are in jeopardy.

“We do not expect this decision to have long-term negative implications on the Penn State brand,” the documents read. “... We can expect short-term dissatisfaction within the local communities where campus closures will have an impact, which is likely to manifest in negative news coverage — local and regional.”

SUPPORT THIS JOURNALISM and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.