How do we meet Alaska s needs for higher education with fewer resources from the state? 1
Overview 1. Why? 2. Framework 3. Goals and Measures 4. Core Principles 5. Process 2
Why? The purpose of the University of Alaska is to serve the wide variety of education needs in our state the need to provide access to educational opportunity for all our people Higher education attainment is strongly correlated with income, health, civic participation, success Yet our enrollment is on the decline, in terms of our state s population, by 32% since 1980, from 6.3% to 4.3% the need for a highly skilled workforce for the jobs of today and those for the future Our economy needs 65% by 2025 with some higher education; we are at 37% We hire 70% of our new K-12 teachers each year from outside Alaska the need to understand changes in our environment and how to mitigate the negative effects and take advantage of opportunities We lead the world in research on the Arctic; we must continue our leadership Every dollar invested in research at UA returns $4.20 in external funds to Alaska the need to diversify Alaska s economy Our economy has for too long been dependent on just a few sectors, with one in particular playing a dominant role, and it is in decline; what will take its place? Alaska ranks near the bottom of the states in terms of our new economy We all know that it takes a great university to create a great state 3
Why? The process is based on a few basic observations: each of our universities has unique strengths in meeting the state s needs; we must build on those strengths our campuses cannot be everything to everyone; we must focus on priorities our cost structures are high, our administration too large; we must streamline our bureaucracies In the face of two imperatives to strengthen programs and services, with fewer state resources we will review our major academic programs and administrative services for how we can create a more sustainable university with more diverse revenue sources, a leaner university in which we reallocate resources from programs and services that are: not core to each university s strengths in meeting state needs challenged by low enrollment, high cost, or insufficient faculty resources redundant with programs at our other universities to programs and services that are: based on each university s distinctive strengths Enhanced through technology, collaboration, and consolidation focused on wide access to cost effective, high quality programs Now more than ever, we have the opportunity to lead our state forward through higher education and this is our chance to help build a great university and, as a result, a great state. 4
How do we optimize our statewide system to achieve our goals for higher education in Alaska? Summer 2016 OUR MISSION OBJECTIVE CORE PRINCIPLES STRATEGY WHO WE ARE CAMPUS LEAD FOR THE STATE** Research Teaching Outreach The University of Alaska inspires learning, and advances and disseminates knowledge through teaching, research, and public service, emphasizing the North and its diverse peoples." (Regents' Policy 01.01.01) Maximize value to Alaska through excellent, accessible, and cost effective higher education funded by diverse and growing revenue sources UA ANCHORAGE Comprehensive metropolitan university in Alaska s economic hub Social and economic sciences, health Health professions Social and economic sciences Business and public policy* Teacher education* Engineering* Logistics Project Management Aligned with Research and Teaching Focus Focus, Access, Diversity, Excellence, Consistency, Fiscal Sustainability Prepare, Restructure, Implement, Refine UA FAIRBANKS Research university renowned for leadership in Arctic and the North Arctic, physical, and natural science; engineering, applied energy Physical, natural, and related sciences Arctic / Northern Studies Management* Teacher education* Engineering* Rural development / tribal mgmt Doctoral education UA SOUTHEAST Comprehensive university focused on e-learning & interdisciplinary studies Interdisciplinary / environmental Marine Biology/fisheries (undergraduate) Management* Teacher education* Marine trades Mine training Interdisciplinary degrees/ degree completion COURSES AVAILABLE ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Common General Education Requirements Liberal Arts and Humanities Distance Education Career and Technical Education Alaska Native Studies Wide choice of non-major courses Dual credit with K-12 Developmental Education * Subject to review, Summer 2016 ** To the extent areas of research, teaching, and outreach at campuses other than the lead campus may be high quality, cost effective, and core to mission, they may continue to be supported. 5
Potential Goals and Measures Summer 2016 Goals Wider access to higher education for all Alaskans UA research focused on issues of high state need Alaskans prepared for Alaska s jobs A more diversified knowledge economy in Alaska A strong education pipeline, from K-12 to the workforce Sustainable revenues Measures Increase Alaskans going directly from high school to postsecondary from 47% to 63% (1.3X increase) Increase participation rates of Pell Grant eligible students Continue to rank #1 globally in Arctic research and expand in biomedical and social/economic Increase engagement with stateagencies and communities on Alaskan problems Increase Alaskans hired into teacher vacancies from 30% to 90% (3X increase) Increase graduates in STEM fields from 38/1,000 to 59/1,000 (1.5X increase) Increase graduates in health occupations from 36/1,000 to 45/1,000 (1.25X increase) Increase New Economy score from 56 to 64 by focusing on inventor patents, health IT, export business development, and industry investment in UA research and development Increase corporate use of Alaska higher education income tax credit program Increase from 37% to 65% Alaskans with post-secondary education leading to a degree or certificate (1.75X increase) Increase the number of K-12 students participating in concurrent enrollment programs at UA Increase revenues in order to fund investments in areas of strategic importance and opportunity Diversify revenue sources so we are less reliant on the State 6
Summer 2016 Core Principles Focus We will reduce unnecessary redundancy to more cost effectively meet the state s higher education needs by focusing each university on its unique strengths. Access We will increase Alaskans participation in higher education by maximizing use of innovations in e- Learning, supporting high demand programs, and ensuring affordability. Scope We will offer a wide diversity of academic degree and certificate programs across the university system, though not all programs will necessarily be available at all locations. Excellence We commit to excellence in everything we do, in the classroom, in our labs, and in the communities we serve. Consistency We will streamline and increase consistency in business practices, policies, processes, and systems that support expedited student progress through our programs. Fiscal Sustainability We seek to be more entrepreneurial in our strategies to grow and diversify our revenues. 7
Process 1. Form strategic pathway teams of faculty, staff, students, governance representatives, administrators, and community members 2. Facilitate process for identification and review of options, including the opportunity to present new options 3. Teams report out to Summit Team 4. Summit Team reviews options and discusses pros and cons; criteria are cost effectiveness, access, quality, community impact, and sustainability 5. Receive and consider on-line feedback from all sectors 6. Receive feedback from general public at forums on the campuses 7. Seek additional analysis, consultation with governance, and Board of Regents approval as necessary 8. Inform Board of Regents and communicate actions to UA community 8
1. Information Technology 2. Procurement 3. Research Administration 4. Intercollegiate Athletics 5. Management / Business 6. Engineering 7. Teacher Education Phase 1 Reviews 9
Information Technology Challenge: Information technology is an essential utility for all academic and administrative functions. The wide area network and enterprise applications (e.g., Banner) are managed by Statewide. The campuses manage their local area networks, selected applications, training, and help desk services. Many campus IT employees are in decentralized units. Our annual expense for IT is $65m: $19m at SW and $46m on the campuses (of which $10m is on restricted funds). Charge: Review options that result in standardized enterprise and other applications, outsourcing, and transition to the cloud. Goal: Reduce operating cost by a minimum of 20%, implement continuous process improvement for additional cost reduction. Options: Pros Cons Reduce imbedded IT personnel in operating units Cost reduction; standardization, innovation at each campus Insufficient cost savings, service impacts; morale Consolidate all IT in single shared services organization Standardization; consistency; vertical alignment, aides student experience Impact on local services; possible reduction of innovation Federated IT Built on campus strengths; least amount of change required Requires constant negotiation; subject to campus budget pressures Direction: 1. Reduce imbedded IT personnel in operating units (w/partial exception of those on restricted funds) 2. Establish IT governance council, chaired by UA CITO, w/ charter approved by UA President & mandate to prioritize services & reduce unrestricted cost 20% from FY17 to FY18 3. Implement lean process improvement and seek economies of scale, outsourcing, and cloud services 4. Review in 1 year 10
Procurement Challenge: With separate procurement offices, UA is not able to gain economies of scale in purchasing. Annual purchases in excess of $200m. Large cuts in staffing already made. Charge: Review options for reducing cost and increasing purchasing leverage via consolidation at one campus. Goal: Reduce cost of purchases by 20%. Implement continuous process improvement in order to reduce costs on an ongoing basis. Options: Centralized office at UAF, second office at UAA Full centralization Enhance status quo with procurement council and dedicated Chief Procurement Officer Pros Increased collaboration, could take advantage of economies of scale. Consistent use of procurement field technician model. Potential for simplified management, and potential for greatest economies of scale. Existing structures remain in place but coordination could improve streamlining. Cons May not achieve goals for cost savings. Procurement process could lack the local knowledge needed to best serve the different communities. Greatest potential for cost savings is not realized. Direction: 1. Centralized office at UAF, second office at UAA policy and CPO at UAF 2. Obtain 20% savings through bulk purchasing 3. Implement lean process improvement and seek economies of scale 4. Revisit in 3 years 11
Research Administration Challenge: Research is primarily done at the University System s research campus, UAF. While some research is done at UAA and UAS, primarily in areas of environmental and biomedical science, UAA and UAS do not gain the economies of scale in research administration. Charge: Review options for reducing cost and increasing performance via consolidation at one campus. Research administrative functions under review Grants and Contracts Administration, Intellectual Property, and Research Integrity. Goal: Reduce administrative cost by 20% Options: Consolidation all three research admin functions at a single university Pros Cons Most consistent delivery of back of the house functions. Opportunity for streamlining functions. Pooling of expertise. Loss of skill set at non-lead universities, potential for reduced communication Consolidation of research administration but distribute responsibilities Builds strengths at different Universities. Each University would have a role. The three areas of grants and contracts, IP, and research integrity are integrally linked; they would be separated. Existing structure with shared services Would retain existing structure with some economies of scale to be gained by sharing services. Chain of command is complex. All current administration still needed at each campus. Direction: 1. Consolidate research administration at UAF with service centers at each campus under UAF leadership 2. Create dotted line from Chief Research administrator at UAF (VCR) to VPAAR 3. Implement lean continuous process improvement 4. Review in 3 years 12
Engineering Challenge: With two separate engineering colleges do we serve our students, and meet industry demands in the most efficient way possible. Charge: Identify and assess the pros and cons of most viable options to achieve goals, including a single school and two schools. Goal: Expand enrollment, reduce cost, maintain/improve quality Options: One college, one administration, two locations Collaborative model with current administrative structure Options for changing research administration consolidation v. status quo Pros Some administrative savings, potential economies of scale, full alignment between locations. Significantalignment between programs, local supervision of faculty, potential to reduce costs. Consolidation of research administration may gainsome economies of scale. Cons Concerns about ABET accreditation, effective management of two large organizations separated by a large distance. Currently some collaboration is limited by technology and teaching schedules across the campuses. Consolidation of research within a college that is not consolidated under one administration would challenge management. Direction: 1. Collaborative model with current administrative structure; no structural change & no BOR action required 2. Require common course numbering/descriptions, a common curriculum committee, joint advisory board, and course sharing to gain economies of scale (e.g., increasing student:faculty ratio) for FY 2018 3. Report annually to UA VPAAR on progress 13 4. Revisit in 5 years
Intercollegiate Athletics Challenge: Our two intercollegiate athletics programs (UAA and UAF) provide great value both within and outside. Approximately 325 student athletes participate in 23 sports (13 at UAA and 10 at UAF). In 2015, program expenditures were $16m, with $13m (~80%) coming from general funds and mandatory student fees and $3 million from private sources. At UAA, $5.2m GF, $3.5m fees. At UAF, $3.3m GF, $1m fees. If additional budget cuts from state and cuts to core academic programs, status quo not sustainable. Charge: Review options for reducing cost, including waiver or change of NCAA 10 team rule and UAF/UAA consortium model. Goal: By 2020 cut 2016 general fund by 50%; by 2025 reduce general fund need to 0 Options: Eliminate 1 or both programs Pros Cons Maximum cost savings; enables reallocation to core academic mission Loss of program(s); major negative impact to community relations Get NCAA to accept consortium Reduces cost; maintains at least some teams; allows each team to be only team in state Some teams would be eliminated; no intrastate competition; no sharing of transportation costs Modify existing programs Maintains most teams; least community impact Some teams would be eliminated (UAA); some cost savings, but not at UAF Get NCAA to waive ten team rule Reduces cost; maintains at least some teams; enables intrastate competition; Some teams would be eliminated; some community impact Direction: 1. Pursue with NCAA: (1) waiver of ten team rule, or (2) consortium; BOR action would be required 2. Increase private funding support 3. If waiver or consortium unsuccessful, consider modifying existing programs to reduce cost and/or elimination of 1 or both programs 14
Management / Business Challenge: Our three schools of management (at UAA, UAF, and UAS) collectively enroll over 2,700 students and produce annually close to 600 baccalaureate, licensure, and master s degree recipients in a wide variety of specialties. Each university specializes in selected areas and enjoys tremendous support from the communities they serve, though there are significant opportunities for program improvement through increased collaboration. Charge: Identify and assess the pros and cons of the most viable options to achieve goals including a single school, two schools, or three. Although programs were not part of this analysis, the Management group chose to also discuss options for the MPA programs at UAA and UAS. Goal: Expand enrollment, reduce cost, and maintain/improve quality. Options: 1 dean over 1 school w/ multiple locations 2 deans over 2 schools 3 deans over 3 schools MPA program consolidation MPA program collaboration Pros Cost savings from reduction of deans; accountability; consistency of curriculum and transfers Cost savings; maintains strong schools & community support; encourages collaboration; local responsiveness Maintains strong schools & community support; encourages collaboration; local responsiveness Provides critical mass of faculty; improves integrates programs; maintains F2F and distance options for students Maintains two programs and options for students; increased sharing of electives Cons Less local responsiveness; less innovation, specialization Riskof negative impact on UAS successful distance education programs Low cost savings; low critical mass in some areas Requires UAA to strengthen UAS program; risk of starving UAS program Low cost savings; insufficient integration of faculty and programs Direction: Task a team to build implementation plan for 2 deans over 2 schools (UAA and UAF) with programs delivered from faculty at 3 universities. (UAA) to offer broad array of F2F programs and report to VPAAR on changing from MPA to MPP in conjunction with ISER by June 2017. UAF to focus on accounting and on-line MBA and BEM. UAS to eliminate School, fold programs into School of Arts and Sciences, and focus on on-line BBA and MPA. Implementation to be effective AY2018. 15
Education Challenge: Our three schools of education (at UAA, UAF, and UAS) collectively enroll over 1,500 students and produce annually in excess of 500 baccalaureate, licensure, and master s degree recipients in a wide variety of specialties. Yet school districts hire just 240 Alaskans of the 800 new teachers hired each year in the state, at an annual recruiting cost of more than $15m. Annual teacher turnover in rural Alaska is 50%, high school graduation and college going rates are among the lowest in the nation, and 60% of Alaska high school graduates coming to UA require developmental coursework. Charge: Review options for reducing cost and increasing performance via reorganization of teacher education programs into one school, two schools, or a modified version of the current three-school model. Goal: Produce 60% of teacher hires in Alaska by 2020, 90% by 2025. Options: 1 dean over 3 schools 1 dean over 1 school with faculty on campuses Consortium of 3 deans over 3 schools Specialization by each school in selected areas Pros Increased accountability; cost savings from fewer deans; aligned curriculum; one stop shop for school districts; faculty report to campus Increased accountability; cost savings from fewer deans; aligned curriculum; one stop shop for school districts; faculty report to dean Increased coordination and collaboration; less transition disruption; more local responsiveness Each school focuses on selected areas; no redundant programming; eases competition and increases coordination; could apply to all options Cons Would require associate deans at non-base locations; may reduce innovation and local responsiveness; disruption from transition Would require associate deans at non-base locations; may reduce innovation and local responsiveness Low cost savings; voluntary collaboration difficult to achieve; less accountability to meet state needs Requires constant oversight to ensure meeting statewide responsibilities Direction: Task a team to build implementation plan for 1 dean over 1 school with administrative head at 1 university and specialties delivered through programs/faculty at 3 universities. Based on best practice, develop plan to phase out BEd in favor16 of disciplinary degrees plus licensure and graduate programs. Seek BOR review and approval at November meeting.
Discussion 17